code-review

Code-Review: Deep Code Review

Multi-mode code review supporting single-agent and cross-agent review patterns. Integrates with EARS for knowledge capture.

Review Scope Detection

1. User specifies files → review those files
2. Called from plan-execute → review that batch's changes
3. Neither specified → use git diff to find recent changes

Review Modes

claude-only

Fast single-perspective review by Claude Code. Best for small, low-risk changes.

codex-review (default)

Codex performs the review, Claude adjudicates findings.

Via MCP:

• PROMPT: files to review + review instructions (see dimensions below)
• cd: current working directory
• sandbox: "read-only"
• return_all_messages: true

Via Shell fallback:

bash <plugin-scripts-dir>/ask_codex.sh "<review-prompt>" read-only "<working-dir>"

dual-review

Both Claude and Codex review independently, then cross-compare findings. Most thorough, best for critical changes.

1. Claude reviews first, documents findings
2. Codex reviews independently (don't share Claude's findings)
3. Compare and synthesize — agreements strengthen confidence, disagreements need resolution

Review Dimensions

Every review evaluates these 5 dimensions. Each issue gets a severity tag.

Dimension	What to Check
Correctness	Logic errors, off-by-one, null handling, race conditions
Security	Injection, auth bypass, secrets exposure, input validation
Performance	O(n²) loops, memory leaks, unnecessary allocations
Readability	Naming, structure, complexity, documentation
Test Coverage	Missing tests, edge cases, assertion quality

Severity levels: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW

Review Report

Write to ./plans/code-review-{timestamp}.md:

## Code Review Report
**Reviewer**: Claude Code | Codex | Dual
**Verdict**: APPROVED | NEEDS_FIX | NEEDS_MAJOR_REWORK
**Files Reviewed**: N files
**Issues Found**: X critical, Y high, Z medium, W low

### Issues

#### [CRITICAL] Issue title
- **File**: path/to/file.py:42
- **Dimension**: Correctness
- **Description**: ...
- **Suggested Fix**: ...

#### [HIGH] Issue title
...

Handling Results

APPROVED

• If synapse-git is installed, auto-run /commit + /push; otherwise git add -A && git commit && git push manually
• Notify user of approval

NEEDS_FIX

• Send fix instructions to the executor (same SESSION_ID if available)
• Maximum 3 fix rounds
• After fixes, re-review the changed files only

NEEDS_MAJOR_REWORK

• Recommend going back to /plan-review
• Write EARS Dead End entry with findings
• Do NOT auto-commit

EARS Integration (requires synapse-ears)

If synapse-ears is installed:

• Review findings that reveal error patterns → write EARS Error entry
• If the same type of issue appears across 2+ reviews → promote to KNOWN_ISSUES.md
• Review completion → write EARS Checkpoint
• Major rework decision → write EARS Dead End

If synapse-ears is NOT installed, skip EARS entries.