reviewing-code

name: reviewing-code description: Reviews the current branch against a base ref using multiple AI backends. Runs a Workflow that streams the diff through discovery, discovery-secondary, remediation, and adversarial-verify stages, routing each stage to the available agents (codex, claude, opencode, kimi, …) and gracefully skipping any backend that isn't installed. Writes a markdown findings report under docs/. Use when preparing or updating a PR, before merging a feature branch, or when wanting an independent second opinion from a different agent. user-invocable: true allowed-tools: Workflow, Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(node:), Bash(git:), Bash(command -v:*) model: claude-opus-4-8 context: fork

reviewing-code

Four-pass multi-agent code review of the current branch against a base ref via a Workflow. The diff streams through discovery → discovery-secondary → remediation → verify stages, each routed to a different AI backend; findings are adversarially verified before they fold into one markdown report.

When to use

• Reviewing a feature branch before opening (or after updating) a PR.
• Getting a second-and-third opinion from a different agent than the one currently editing.
• Surfacing real bugs / regressions / data-integrity issues, not style.
• Establishing a paper trail for a tricky migration or compatibility-path change.

Default pipeline

Per-role fallback order, hybrid-backend handling (opencode), and the graceful-detect / skip-with-note policy live in _shared/multi-agent-backends.md. This skill is the canonical implementation of that contract.

Spec compliance gates the quality passes

The ordering is a contract, not a preference: the spec-compliance pass runs first and gates the quality passes (discovery / remediation). It checks the change against its stated intent for over-building, scope creep, and under-building — failure modes that are cheaper to catch before quality review than after, and that make a quality pass on out-of-scope code a wasted round-trip. The pass ends with an explicit Spec compliance: PASS / CONCERNS verdict line, and its ## Stated Intent + ## Spec Compliance sections are preserved through every later pass by a code-level guarantee in run.mts (ensureSpecSection), not by trusting each agent to keep them. The ordering is enforced by scripts/fleet/check/review-stages-are-ordered.mts, so spec-compliance can't be reordered after a quality pass without failing check --all.

Variant analysis on confirmed findings

For every High / Critical finding the verify pass marks CONFIRMED, run a variant search before closing the report. The same shape often hides elsewhere in the repo. The discipline (what to search for, how to scope, when to skip) lives in _shared/variant-analysis.md. Append a ## Variant Analysis section per finding when variants are found; omit the section when there are none rather than emit an empty header.

For security-class diffs specifically, run scanning-quality/scans/differential.md alongside this skill. That scan is the security-regression cousin to this skill's general review.

Compounding lessons

When the same review finding has fired in two consecutive runs (or across two repos), promote it to a fleet rule per _shared/compound-lessons.md. Don't keep catching the same bug; codify it once.

Usage

Invoke the skill; it authors the Workflow inline. The following knobs are passed as args (the Workflow reads them when building scope + routing):

Configuration via env vars

Output

A single markdown file (docs/<branch-slug>-review-findings.md by default) with this structure:

# <descriptive title>
## Scope
## Executive Summary
## Findings
### 1. <title>
   Severity, Summary, Affected Code, Why This Is A Problem, Impact,
   Suggested Fix, Suggested Regression Tests
## Assumptions / Gaps
## Validation Notes
## Suggested Next Steps
---
## <Backend> Verification
   Per-finding verdict (CONFIRMED / LIKELY / FALSE POSITIVE),
   fix soundness, missed findings, overall recommendation.

How the passes run: author a Workflow

Run the four passes as a Workflow (not ad-hoc Task spawns). The four passes are a strict pipeline — discovery feeds discovery-secondary feeds remediation feeds verify — and each finding carries structured fields the next stage reads, so the staged-agent() chain plus per-finding schemas is exactly the shape Workflow models. The skill invoking Workflow is a sanctioned opt-in; pass the base ref + pass overrides as args.

Author the script inline (don't pre-Write it). Shape:

1. Resolve scope first (plain code, no agents). Compute base ref + merge base + commit list + diff stat via Bash(git:*). Detect which agent CLIs are on PATH via Bash(command -v:*). Build a pass → backend map from the fallback order in _shared/multi-agent-backends.md; log() any pass whose preferred backend is absent and which fallback (or skip) it took.
2. phase('Discovery') — the find stages, streamed. Model the review dimensions (the diffed files, or the configured --only subset) as a pipeline(dimensions, discover, discoverSecondary) so each dimension flows find → secondary-find without a barrier between dimensions. Each stage is an agent() whose agentType is the routed backend (codex / claude / opencode / kimi), isolation is read-only, and whose prompt is the pass prompt scoped to the base-ref diff. Every finder returns a FINDINGS_SCHEMA ({ pass, findings: [{ file, line, severity: critical|high|medium|low, claim, affectedCode, why, impact }] }). discovery-secondary merges only NEW findings (drop duplicates by file:line:claim).
3. phase('Remediation') — dependent stage. For each finding, one agent() (the remediation backend) adds { suggestedFix, suggestedRegressionTests } to the finding. This depends on the full discovery set, so it runs after the discovery pipeline drains.
4. phase('Verify') — adversarial pass. Per High/Critical finding, spawn a skeptic agent() (the verify backend, default claude) that tries to REFUTE the finding against the actual diff, returning a VERDICT_SCHEMA ({ isReal, verdict: confirmed|likely|false-positive, why }). Drop findings the skeptic refutes before they land in the report; mark survivors CONFIRMED. Skip this phase when --skip-verify is set and log() that the report is unverified.
5. phase('Variant') — for every CONFIRMED High/Critical finding, one agent() searching the repo for the same shape per _shared/variant-analysis.md; merge variants in. Omit the section entirely when none are found.
6. Synthesize — a final agent() takes the verified+variant JSON and writes the markdown report in the structure under Output (overwrite on discovery, append the ## <Backend> Verification section from the verify verdicts).

Return { report, findingCount, bySeverity } from the script. The per-finding FINDINGS_SCHEMA / VERDICT_SCHEMA replace the free-text fold-up: each stage returns validated data the next stage reads instead of re-parsing prose. Backends absent from PATH are skipped with a log() note rather than failing the Workflow — the graceful-detect / skip-with-note policy in _shared/multi-agent-backends.md still governs routing. The pass prompts are the single source of truth so the pipeline and the prompts can't drift apart.