From roborev
Requests a design review for a commit via roborev and presents the verdict, findings, and file paths. Supports single-agent and multi-reviewer panel reviews.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/roborev:roborev-design-reviewThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Request a design review for a commit and present the results.
Request a design review for a commit and present the results.
/roborev-design-review [commit] [--panel <name>|none]
Do NOT invoke this skill when the user is presenting or pasting existing review results. Messages that contain review findings, verdicts, or summaries are outputs — not requests to start a new review.
This skill requires you to execute bash commands to validate the commit and launch the review. The task is not complete until the background review finishes and you present the results to the user.
These instructions are guidelines, not a rigid script. Use the conversation context. Skip steps that are already satisfied. Defer to project-level CLAUDE.md instructions when they conflict with these steps.
When the user invokes /roborev-design-review [commit] [--panel <name>|none]:
If a commit ref is provided, verify it resolves to a valid commit:
git rev-parse --verify -- <commit>^{commit}
If validation fails, inform the user the ref is invalid. Do not proceed.
Construct the review command:
roborev review [commit] --wait --type design [--panel <name>|none]
--panel <name> is specified, include it (fans out to the named config panel); --panel none forces a single-agent reviewLaunch a background task that runs the command. This lets the user continue working while the review runs.
Use the Task tool with run_in_background: true and subagent_type: "Bash":
roborev review [commit] --wait --type design [--panel <name>|none]
Tell the user that the design review has been submitted and they can continue working. You will present the results when the review completes.
When the background task completes, read the output.
If the command output contains an error (e.g., daemon not running, repo not initialized, review errored), report it to the user. Suggest roborev status to check the daemon, roborev init if the repo is not initialized, or re-running the review.
Otherwise, present the review to the user:
If you pass --panel <name>, or a default_panel is configured for explicit
reviews, the review fans out to a panel of reviewers. In that case the
Enqueued job <id> is the synthesis (parent) job that aggregates them, and
its verdict and findings are the synthesized result across the whole panel.
Present that synthesized verdict/findings, and offer fix on that parent id —
never an individual reviewer. roborev show prints a one-line reviewers summary
(e.g. 3 reviewers: bug P, security F) for a synthesis job. --panel none
forces a single-agent review, and automatic post-commit hook reviews stay
single-agent regardless of default_panel.
If the review has findings (verdict is Fail), offer to address them:
/roborev-fix <job_id>"Extract the job ID from the review output to include in the suggestion. Look for it in the Enqueued job <id> for ... line or in the review header. For a panel review this id is the synthesis parent.
If the review passed, confirm the result and do not offer /roborev-fix.
Default design review of HEAD:
User: /roborev-design-review
Agent:
roborev review --wait --type design/roborev-fix 1042"Design review of a specific commit:
User: /roborev-design-review abc123
Agent:
abc123 resolves to a valid commitroborev review abc123 --wait --type design/roborev-fix 1043"/roborev-review --type design — equivalent, with additional --type flexibility/roborev-design-review-branch — design review all commits on the current branch/roborev-fix — fix a review's findings in codenpx claudepluginhub kenn-io/roborev --plugin roborevRequests a code review for a commit via roborev, runs it in background, and presents verdict and findings grouped by severity.
Provides an independent code review by invoking a different AI model with zero conversation context. Useful for second opinions on code, commits, plans, or files.
Runs cross-model code reviews using the external Codex CLI tool from a Claude session. Catches bugs that single-model self-review would miss by leveraging a different reviewer architecture.