code-review

Files (5)

• SKILL.md
• breaking-changes.md · references/
• change-size.md · references/
• context.md · references/
• testing.md · references/

SKILL.md (first lines)

# Code review

Ported from the Codex `code-review` orchestrator and its `code-review-*` skills, made repo-neutral.

## Scope

Infer from the argument. No argument: review current branch changes against its verified
intended base, plus uncommitted and untracked changes. Prepare the comparison once before
dispatch: pin the repository, target and base/head revisions, or describe the exact
staged/unstaged/untracked scope. For a
PR, capture its current base/head and use its PR diff; for a branch, verify that a merge base
exists before using it. In shallow or detached checkouts, use the pinned PR diff or an
explicit available revision range instead of retrying an unavailable merge base. Flag temp,
local or untracked files as "remove or ignore?", never as defects.

Give each reviewer this prepared comparison, scope, repository guidance, the tools actually
callable in its runner, and how to return its complete final report. Reuse supplied orientation
instead of repeating it; investigate only missing context. Recheck mutable PR state before
publishing findings or changing its metadata.

## Method

Dispatch the `code-reviewer` agent once per lens, all in parallel, each given the prepared handoff and the full path of one lens file:

- [references/testing.md](references/testing.md)
- [references/context.md](references/context.md)
- [references/change-size.md](references/change-size.md)
- [references/breaking-changes.md](references/breaking-changes.md)

Run reviewers at the highest reasoning available. Codex: `xhigh`. Claude Code: the agent definition pins the model.

If the repo carries its own review guidance (`CLAUDE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `CONTRIBUTING.md`, a `docs/review/` directory), every reviewer reads it and applies it under its lens. Repo rules outrank the lens file.

## Report

Return every single finding from every reviewer. There is no cap. Use raw Markdown. Number findings for reference. Each finding names a specific file path and line number. Group by lens, keep the reviewer's own severity, and do not merge or soften findings.

## GitHub

When reviewing a PR and the authenticated user owns it, add a `code-reviewed` label. Do not leave GitHub comments unless explicitly asked.

## Read-only

Reviewers analyze, never modify. Fixing is the user's next decision.

From Fleron/Claude-plugins, MIT.

More from Fleron/Claude-plugins