review-code

/review-code — 3-Model Code Review

Usage

/review-code <feature-name>

Pipeline Stage: 6 of 7

Prerequisite: /implement <feature-name> completed

Process

Phase 1: Extract Diff

Get the full changeset from the feature branch:

cd {worktree} && git diff main...HEAD

Also gather:

• List of changed files
• spec.md and plan.md for context

Phase 2: 3-Model Parallel Review

Same pattern as review-plan, but with code review criteria:

Claude (always available):

• Spawn reviewer agent with diff + spec + docs/coding-principles.md context
• Focus: correctness, security, error handling, test coverage, coding principles compliance

Codex (if available):

• call_codex with code review prompt
• Focus: code quality, patterns, potential bugs

Gemini (if available):

• call_gemini with code review prompt
• Focus: performance, alternative approaches, edge cases

Phase 3: Synthesize

Use scripts/synthesize-reviews.sh to merge:

• CR-xxx numbered findings
• Consensus level (3-model, 2-model, claude-only)
• Verdict: SHIP or NEEDS_FIXES

Save to .dev/specs/{feature-name}/reviews/code-review.md

Phase 4: Act on Verdict

If NEEDS_FIXES:

• Present findings grouped by severity
• List specific files and lines to fix
• Suggest running /implement again after fixes
• Do NOT mark PR as ready

If SHIP:

1. Add review summary as PR comment:

   gh pr comment --body "{review summary}"
   

2. Mark PR as ready for review:

   gh pr ready
   

3. Send notification via scripts/notify.sh

Rules

• This is a REVIEW stage — do not modify code directly
• All findings must be specific (file:line, not vague)
• Graceful degradation if Codex/Gemini unavailable