Team Review

Parallel review using Agent Teams. Review from multiple perspectives simultaneously after implementation is complete.

Prerequisites

• Implementation is complete (after /team-implement or manual implementation)

• All tests are passing

Workflow

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

Step 1: Gather Diff

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

Step 2: Spawn Review Team

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-5.4 --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.

Optional: Competing Hypotheses (for debugging)

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.

Step 3: Synthesize Findings

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

Prioritization

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

Step 4: Report to User

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?

Cleanup

Clean up the team

Tips

• Reviewer specialization: Each reviewer focuses on a different perspective to prevent blind spots

• Codex utilization: Quality Reviewer delegates complex logic analysis to Codex

• Report persistence: Save review results in .claude/docs/research/ for reference during fixes

• Competing hypotheses mode: Adversarial review pattern is effective for bug investigation

• Cost awareness: 3 reviewers = 3x token consumption. For small changes, a subagent-based review is sufficient