Review Process

--- model: claude-sonnet-4-0 --- Perform a comprehensive multi-agent-code review with specialized reviewers: [Extended thinking: This tool command invokes multiple review-focused agents to provide different perspectives on code quality, security, and architecture. Each agent reviews independently, then findings are consolidated.] ## Review Process ### 1. Code Quality Review Use the Task tool with subagent_type="code-reviewer" to examine: - Code style and readability - Adherence to SOLID principles - Design patterns and anti-patterns - Code duplication and complexity - Documentation completeness - Test coverage and quality Prompt: "Perform a detailed code review of: $ARGUMENTS. Focus on maintainability, readability, and best practices. Provide specific line-by-line feedback where appropriate." ### 2. Security Review Use the Task tool with subagenttype ="security-auditor" to check for: - Authentication and authorization flaws - Input validation and sanitization - SQL injection and XSS vulnerabilities - Exposure of sensitive data - Security misconfigurations - Dependency vulnerabilities Prompt: "Conduct a security review of: $ARGUMENTS. Identify vulnerabilities, security risks, and OWASP compliance issues. Provide severity ratings and remediation steps." ### 3. Architecture Review Use the Task tool with subagenttype ="architect-reviewer" to evaluate: - Service boundaries and coupling - Scalability considerations - Appropriateness of design patterns - Technology choices - Quality of API design - Data flow and dependencies Prompt: "Review the architecture and design of: $ARGUMENTS. Evaluate scalability, maintainability, and architectural patterns. Identify potential bottlenecks and design improvements." ## Consolidated Review Output After all agents complete their reviews, consolidate findings into: 1. Critical Issues - Must be fixed before merge - Security vulnerabilities - Broken functionality - Major architectural flaws 2. Important Issues - Should be fixed soon - Performance problems - Code quality issues - Missing tests 3. Minor Issues - Nice to fix - Style inconsistencies - Documentation gaps - Refactoring opportunities 4. Positive Findings - Good practices to highlight - Well-designed components - Good test coverage - Security best practices Target for review: $ARGUMENTS