Parallel code review using Agent Teams. Spawns specialized reviewers (security, quality, test coverage) to review implementation from different perspectives simultaneously. Run after implementation.
Parallel review using Agent Teams. Review from multiple perspectives simultaneously after implementation is complete.
/team-implement or manual implementation)Step 1: Gather Diff
Collect change diffs from the implementation scope
↓
Step 2: Spawn Review Team
Launch specialized reviewers in parallel
↓
Step 3: Synthesize Findings
Integrate review results and prioritize
↓
Step 4: Report to User
Present findings and recommended actions
Identify the scope of changes to review.
# All changes from main branch
git diff main...HEAD
# Changed files list
git diff main...HEAD --name-only
# Commit history
git log main..HEAD --oneline
Launch reviewers with specialized perspectives in parallel.
Create an agent team to review implementation of: {feature}
The following files were changed:
{changed files list}
Spawn reviewers:
1. **Security Reviewer**
Prompt: "You are a Security Reviewer for: {feature}.
Review all changed files for security vulnerabilities:
- Hardcoded secrets or credentials
- SQL injection, XSS, command injection
- Input validation gaps
- Authentication/authorization issues
- Sensitive data exposure in logs/errors
- Dependency vulnerabilities
Changed files: {list}
Reference: .claude/rules/security.md
For each finding:
- Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low
- File and line number
- Description of the issue
- Recommended fix
Save report to .claude/docs/research/review-security-{feature}.md
IMPORTANT — Work Log:
When your review is complete, write a work log file to:
.claude/logs/agent-teams/{team-name}/security-reviewer.md
Use this format:
# Work Log: Security Reviewer
## Summary
(1-2 sentence summary of review scope and key findings)
## Review Scope
- Files reviewed: {list}
- Focus areas: {list}
## Findings
- [{severity}] {file}:{line} — {issue summary}
## Communication with Teammates
- → {recipient}: {summary of message sent}
- ← {sender}: {summary of message received}
(If none, write 'None')
## Issues Encountered
- {issue}: {how it was resolved}
(If none, write 'None')
"
2. **Quality Reviewer**
Prompt: "You are a Quality Reviewer for: {feature}.
Review all changed files for code quality:
- Adherence to coding principles (.claude/rules/coding-principles.md)
- Single responsibility violations
- Deep nesting (should use early return)
- Missing type hints
- Magic numbers
- Naming clarity
- Function length (target < 20 lines)
- Library constraint violations (.claude/docs/libraries/)
Use Codex CLI for deep analysis of complex logic:
codex exec --model gpt-5.3-codex --sandbox read-only --full-auto "{question}" 2>/dev/null
Changed files: {list}
For each finding:
- Severity: High / Medium / Low
- File and line number
- Current code
- Suggested improvement
Save report to .claude/docs/research/review-quality-{feature}.md
IMPORTANT — Work Log:
When your review is complete, write a work log file to:
.claude/logs/agent-teams/{team-name}/quality-reviewer.md
Use this format:
# Work Log: Quality Reviewer
## Summary
(1-2 sentence summary of review scope and key findings)
## Review Scope
- Files reviewed: {list}
- Focus areas: {list}
## Findings
- [{severity}] {file}:{line} — {issue summary}
## Codex Consultations
- {question asked to Codex}: {key insight from response}
## Communication with Teammates
- → {recipient}: {summary of message sent}
- ← {sender}: {summary of message received}
(If none, write 'None')
## Issues Encountered
- {issue}: {how it was resolved}
(If none, write 'None')
"
3. **Test Reviewer**
Prompt: "You are a Test Reviewer for: {feature}.
Review test coverage and quality:
- Run: uv run pytest --cov=src --cov-report=term-missing
- Check: Are all happy paths tested?
- Check: Are error cases covered?
- Check: Are boundary values tested?
- Check: Are edge cases handled?
- Check: Are external deps properly mocked?
- Check: Do tests follow AAA pattern?
- Check: Are tests independent (no order dependency)?
Reference: .claude/rules/testing.md
For each gap:
- File/function missing coverage
- What test cases are needed
- Priority: High / Medium / Low
Save report to .claude/docs/research/review-tests-{feature}.md
IMPORTANT — Work Log:
When your review is complete, write a work log file to:
.claude/logs/agent-teams/{team-name}/test-reviewer.md
Use this format:
# Work Log: Test Reviewer
## Summary
(1-2 sentence summary of review scope and key findings)
## Review Scope
- Files reviewed: {list}
- Coverage: {percentage}
## Findings
- [{priority}] {file/function}: {missing test case description}
## Test Execution Results
- Total: {N} tests, Passed: {N}, Failed: {N}
- Coverage: {percentage}
## Communication with Teammates
- → {recipient}: {summary of message sent}
- ← {sender}: {summary of message received}
(If none, write 'None')
## Issues Encountered
- {issue}: {how it was resolved}
(If none, write 'None')
"
Wait for all reviewers to complete.
For bug investigation, add adversarial reviewers:
Spawn 3-5 teammates with different hypotheses about the bug.
Have them actively try to disprove each other's theories.
Integrate results from all reviewers and assign priorities.
Read review reports:
.claude/docs/research/review-security-{feature}.md.claude/docs/research/review-quality-{feature}.md.claude/docs/research/review-tests-{feature}.md| Priority | Criteria | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Security vulnerabilities, data loss risk | Must fix before merge |
| High | Bugs, missing critical tests, type errors | Should fix before merge |
| Medium | Code quality, naming, patterns | Fix if time allows |
| Low | Style, minor improvements | Track for later |
Present the integrated review results to the user.
## Review Results: {feature}
### Summary
- Security: {N} findings (Critical: {n}, High: {n}, Medium: {n})
- Code Quality: {N} findings (High: {n}, Medium: {n}, Low: {n})
- Test Coverage: {N}% ({above/below} the 80% target)
### Critical / High Findings
#### [{Severity}] {Issue Title}
- **File**: `{file}:{line}`
- **Issue**: {description}
- **Recommended Fix**: {recommended fix}
...
### Recommended Actions
1. {Action 1 — Critical fix}
2. {Action 2 — High priority fix}
3. {Action 3 — Test gap to fill}
### Medium / Low Findings
{Brief list — details in review reports}
---
Shall we proceed with fixes?
Clean up the team
.claude/docs/research/ for reference during fixes