review skill

by parcadei·parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3·3.9k stars·MIT

Comprehensive code review workflow - parallel specialized reviews → synthesis

A100/100content scan

Is the review skill safe?

Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 1 file in the folder on 2026-09-28.

No findings.

Install the review skill

A skill is a folder. Copy it into your agent's skills folder and the agent loads it when the task matches its description.

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3.git /tmp/Continuous-Claude-v3
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
cp -r /tmp/Continuous-Claude-v3/.claude/skills/review ~/.claude/skills/review

available in every project

In the Claude apps, zip the folder and upload it from the Skills settings. The folder on GitHub

The instructions your agent would load

SKILL.md as published, without the frontmatter. Read it on GitHub

/review - Code Review Workflow

Multi-perspective code review with parallel specialists.

When to Use

"Review this code"
"Review my PR"
"Check this before I merge"
"Get feedback on implementation"
Before merging significant changes
Quality gates

Workflow Overview

┌──────────┐
         │  critic  │ ─┐
         │ (code)   │  │
         └──────────┘  │
                       │
         ┌──────────┐  │      ┌──────────────┐
         │plan-reviewer│ ─┼────▶ │ review-agent │
         │ (plan)   │  │      │ (synthesis)  │
         └──────────┘  │      └──────────────┘
                       │
         ┌──────────┐  │
         │plan-reviewer│ ─┘
         │ (change) │
         └──────────┘

         Parallel                Sequential
         perspectives            synthesis

Agent Sequence

Review Perspectives

critic: Is this good code? (Style, patterns, readability)
plan-reviewer: Does this match the design? (Architecture, plan)
plan-reviewer: Is this change safe? (Risk, impact, regressions)
review-agent: Overall assessment and recommendations

Execution

Phase 1: Parallel Reviews

# Code quality review
Task(
  subagent_type="critic",
  prompt="""
  Review code quality: [SCOPE]

  Evaluate:
  - Code style and consistency
  - Design patterns used
  - Readability and maintainability
  - Error handling
  - Test coverage

  Output: List of issues with severity (critical/major/minor)
  """,
  run_in_background=true
)

# Architecture review
Task(
  subagent_type="plan-reviewer",
  prompt="""
  Review architecture alignment: [SCOPE]

  Check:
  - Follows established patterns
  - Matches implementation plan (if exists)
  - Consistent with system design
  - No architectural violations

  Output: Alignment assessment with concerns
  """,
  run_in_background=true
)

# Change impact review
Task(
  subagent_type="plan-reviewer",
  prompt="""
  Review change impact: [SCOPE]

  Assess:
  - Risk level of changes
  - Affected systems/components
  - Backward compatibility
  - Potential regressions
  - Security implications

  Output: Risk assessment with recommendations
  """,
  run_in_background=true
)

# Wait for all parallel reviews
[Check TaskOutput for all three]

Phase 2: Synthesis

Task(
  subagent_type="review-agent",
  prompt="""
  Synthesize reviews for: [SCOPE]

  Reviews:
  - critic: [code quality findings]
  - plan-reviewer: [architecture findings]
  - plan-reviewer: [change impact findings]

  Create final review:
  - Overall verdict (APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / NEEDS_DISCUSSION)
  - Prioritized action items
  - Blocking vs non-blocking issues
  - Summary for PR description
  """
)

Review Modes

Full Review

User: /review
→ All four agents, comprehensive review

Quick Review

User: /review --quick
→ critic only, fast feedback

Security Focus

User: /review --security
→ Add aegis (security agent) to parallel phase

PR Review

User: /review PR #123
→ Fetch PR diff, review changes

Example

User: /review the authentication changes

Claude: Starting /review workflow...

Phase 1: Running parallel reviews...
┌────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ critic: Reviewing code quality...          │
│ plan-reviewer: Checking architecture...         │
│ plan-reviewer: Assessing change impact...         │
└────────────────────────────────────────────┘

critic: Found 2 issues
- [minor] Inconsistent error messages in auth.ts
- [major] Missing input validation in login()

plan-reviewer: ✅ Matches authentication plan

plan-reviewer: Medium risk
- Affects: login, signup, password reset
- Breaking change: session token format

Phase 2: Synthesizing...

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Review Summary                              │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES                    │
│                                             │
│ Blocking:                                   │
│ 1. Add input validation to login()          │
│                                             │
│ Non-blocking:                               │
│ 2. Standardize error messages               │
│                                             │
│ Notes

Verdicts

APPROVE: Ready to merge, all issues are minor
REQUESTCHANGES**: Blocking issues must be fixed
NEEDSDISCUSSION**: Architectural decisions need input

More skills from parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3

Aagent-context-isolationAgent Context Isolation
Aagent-orchestrationAgent Orchestration Rules
Aagentic-workflowAgentic Workflow Pattern
Aagentica-claude-proxyGuide for integrating Agentica SDK with Claude Code CLI proxy
Aagentica-infrastructureReference guide for Agentica multi-agent infrastructure APIs
Aagentica-promptsWrite reliable prompts for Agentica/REPL agents that avoid LLM instruction ambiguity
Aagentica-sdkBuild Python agents with Agentica SDK - @agentic decorator, spawn(), persistence, MCP integration
Aagentica-serverAgentica server + Claude proxy setup - architecture, startup sequence, debugging
Aagentica-spawnSpawn Agentica multi-agent patterns
Aanalytic-functionsProblem-solving strategies for analytic functions in complex analysis
Aast-grep-findAST-based code search and refactoring via ast-grep MCP
Aasync-repl-protocolAsync REPL Protocol

All agent skills → · MCP servers