Code Review

Review local changes using specialized subagents across 5 domains. Only noteworthy findings — no nitpicking.

Agent assumptions (applies to all agents and subagents):

• All tools are functional. Do not test tools or make exploratory calls.
• Only call a tool if required. Every tool call should have a clear purpose.
• If you are running a jj diff ALWAYS include the --git flag.

Workflow

1. Gather context

Launch a sonnet agent to collect:

jj diff --git --from main --summary   # changed files
jj diff --git --from main             # full diff
jj log --limit 5                      # recent commits for context

2. Launch 5 specialized review agents in parallel

Pass each agent the full diff, file summary, and the CRITICAL FILTER below verbatim. Each returns a list of issues with: file, line, description, severity (critical/warning), and domain tag.

Scope rule: Only review lines starting with

+

in the diff. Ignore context lines (no

+

/

-

prefix). You are reviewing the change, not the file.

Agent 1 — Security (opus) Scan for vulnerabilities in changed

+

lines only:

• Injection flaws (SQL, command, XSS)
• Authentication/authorization weaknesses
• Cryptographic misuse (weak hashing, predictable tokens)
• Sensitive data exposure (credentials, PII in responses)
• OWASP Top 10 patterns

Agent 2 — Code Quality (sonnet) Review structural quality of changed code only:

• Clear logic errors, unreachable code, dead branches
• Type safety issues (any, missing null checks on nullable values)
• Error handling gaps (unhandled promise rejections, swallowed errors)
• CLAUDE.md compliance — quote the exact rule broken

Agent 3 — Performance (sonnet) Flag performance concerns in changed code only:

• Algorithmic complexity issues (O(n²)+ where O(n) is possible)
• N+1 query patterns, unnecessary DB round-trips
• Missing pagination on unbounded queries
• Blocking operations in async contexts

Agent 4 — Test Coverage (sonnet) Evaluate test adequacy for changed code:

• New public functions/endpoints without corresponding tests
• Changed behavior without updated tests
• Edge cases in critical paths (auth, payments, data mutation) lacking coverage
• Only flag when absence creates real risk, not for trivial utilities

Agent 5 — Documentation Accuracy (sonnet) Cross-check user-facing docs against implementation:

• README/docs claims that contradict the actual code
• API documentation (JSDoc/TSDoc) with wrong parameters, return types, or behavior
• Outdated examples that won't work with current code
• Scope: README, CHANGELOG, API doc comments only. Ignore inline TODOs and dev notes

CRITICAL FILTER for ALL agents:

Only report issues that are noteworthy — a senior engineer would stop and comment on them. Specifically:

Flag:

• Will cause bugs, data loss, or security breach
• Misleads future developers (wrong docs, deceptive naming)
• Performance cliff that scales badly
• Missing tests for critical/risky code paths

Do NOT flag:

• Style preferences, formatting, naming conventions
• Linter-catchable issues
• Pre-existing issues outside the diff
• "Nice to have" improvements
• Issues that depend on unknown runtime state
• General suggestions without concrete problems

If uncertain whether an issue is real, do not flag it.

3. Validate flagged issues

For each issue from step 2, launch a parallel validation subagent:

• Security/logic issues → opus agent reads relevant code and confirms
• Quality/docs/test/perf issues → sonnet agent validates

Each validator gets the issue description and must confirm: valid or false positive with reasoning.

Reject as false positive if:

• Linter/formatter would catch it
• Issue is in unchanged context lines, not

  +

  lines
• Cosmetic or stylistic concern
• Would be auto-fixed by tooling
• Uncertain — when in doubt, reject

Filter out false positives.

4. Deduplicate and build action plan

Deduplicate by (file, line). If multiple agents flag the same location, merge into one issue with all relevant domain tags.

Assign unified severity:

• P0 — data loss, security exploits, production crashes
• P1 — logic errors, perf degradation at scale, public API without tests
• P2 — misleading docs, missing error handling, moderate perf issues

For each issue include:

• Severity (P0/P1/P2)
• Domain tags
• File and line
• Description
• Suggested fix (committable suggestion for small fixes, description for larger ones)

Present sorted by severity. Ask user which items they want to resolve.

5. Execute selected fixes

Only fix items the user selects. For unselected items, leave them as-is without comment.

If NO issues found across all domains:

No issues found. Checked: security, code quality, performance, test coverage, documentation accuracy.

Quick Reference

Domain	Agent	Focus
Security	opus	injection, auth, crypto, data exposure
Code Quality	sonnet	logic errors, types, error handling, CLAUDE.md
Performance	sonnet	complexity, N+1, unbounded queries
Test Coverage	sonnet	missing tests for risky/public code
Documentation	sonnet	code/docs mismatches

Common Mistakes

• Flagging style issues — no formatting, naming, or convention feedback unless CLAUDE.md requires it
• Reviewing pre-existing code — only review what's in the diff
• Missing validation step — every issue must be validated before reporting
• Duplicate issues — one entry per unique problem, even if multiple agents flag it
• Fixing without asking — present plan first, let user choose what to resolve