Run all four reviewers in parallel on the recent changes.

Step 1: Parallel Reviews

Spawn ALL agents simultaneously using the Task tool in a single message:

• uncle-bob-reviewer: SOLID scan, TDD interrogation, clean code inspection

• cupid-reviewer: CUPID properties assessment (Composable, Unix, Predictable, Idiomatic, Domain-based)

• test-reviewer: Test pyramid placement, spec validation, naming conventions, flakiness vectors

• pii-reviewer: PII exposure, hardcoded secrets, sensitive data in tests/logs

Focus area: $ARGUMENTS

Step 2: Synthesize Results

After all complete, synthesize:

Review Summary

Uncle Bob (SOLID/Clean Code)

[Key findings]

Dan North (CUPID)

[Key findings]

Test Architect (Pyramid/Quality)

[Key findings on test placement, naming, and quality]

Security (PII/Secrets)

[Key findings on sensitive data exposure]

Conflicts Requiring Decision

[Any tensions between reviewers—these need user input]

Agreed Improvements

[Recommendations all reviewers support]

Step 3: Surface Conflicts

If reviewers disagree on approach (e.g., "extract this class" vs "keep it unified", or "this is E2E" vs "this is integration"):

• Clearly state all positions

• Explain the tradeoff

• Mark as NEEDS USER DECISION for the orchestrator to surface

Do not resolve design tradeoffs yourself—that's a human judgment call.