code-review

Arguments

• base (optional): Base branch/ref. Auto-detected if omitted.
• context (optional): Additional context (e.g., "Security fix for auth").
• No args: auto-detect. One arg: git ref → base, else → context. Two+: first=base, rest=context.

Language

• Agent prompts: English / User-facing report: Japanese

Principles

• Read-only. No nits (style/naming/formatting → /style-review).
• Focus: design mistakes, architectural misfit, best practices violations, security holes, codebase inconsistency, rule violations, logic bugs.
• Severity: ★★★ must fix / ★★☆ should fix / ★☆☆ consider

Workflow

Step 1: Determine review scope

If base given → git diff <merge-base>...HEAD.

If no base → auto-detect:

1. git status --short — uncommitted changes?
2. Uncommitted → git diff + git diff --cached (header: **モード**: 未コミット変更)
3. All committed → detect base (gh pr view → git config branch.*.merge → main/master), then git diff <merge-base>...HEAD + git log --oneline <merge-base>...HEAD (header: **ベース**: \{base}``)

Step 2: Gather material

Exclude linguist-generated files. Gather diff + file list per Step 1. If empty → STOP.

Also read project rules: CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules/**/*.md, rules/**/*.md → combine as {project_rules}.

Step 3: Launch 3 agents in parallel

Spawn via Agent tool, all in one message. Each agent gets: diff, file list, commit log (if any), project rules, context.

Shared preamble (prepend to each):

MANDATORY before ANY findings: Read tool to read FULL content of every changed file + 2-3 related files (imports, callers, siblings).
IGNORE: style/naming/formatting, "consider adding" suggestions, missing docs, theoretical concerns without concrete impact, generic "error handling could be better".

Shared data suffix (append to each):

## Project rules — check for violations
{project_rules}

Context: {context}
Changed files: {file list}
Commit log: {commit log}
Diff: {diff}

Agent 1: Design & Architecture (model: "sonnet")

{preamble}
Senior architect. Find design, architectural, and best-practices problems.
Methodology: Read changed files → read related files → identify codebase patterns → compare against patterns AND language/framework best practices.
Find: Architectural misfit (layer violations, wrong module), design defects (wrong data structure, over-engineering, leaky abstraction), best practices violations (anti-patterns with concrete negative consequence), API inconsistency with existing codebase, coupling problems, missing design considerations.
{data suffix}
Per issue: file:line, Severity, what is wrong and WHY, concrete fix.

Agent 2: Security & Correctness (model: "sonnet")

{preamble}
Security engineer. Find real vulnerabilities, logic bugs, security best-practices violations. NOT theoretical risks.
Methodology: Read changed files → trace data flow (input → validation → output) → check auth/middleware for bypass → check error handling for leaks.
Find: Exploitable vulnerabilities (with concrete attack path), logic bugs (wrong conditions, race conditions, null handling), data integrity (missing atomicity, missing validation at trust boundaries), secrets exposure, unsafe operations, security best-practices violations (with concrete risk).
{data suffix}
Per issue: file:line, Severity, specific vulnerability/bug with attack/failure scenario, concrete fix.

Agent 3: Consistency & Convention (model: "sonnet")

{preamble}
Codebase consistency specialist. Find violations of ESTABLISHED patterns.
Methodology: Read changed files → read 3-5 EXISTING files in same dirs to establish patterns (error handling, module structure, testing) → compare → check project rules.
Find: Pattern violations (cite file:line of established pattern), convention breaks, missing tests (vs existing coverage), rule violations, interface inconsistency.
IMPORTANT: Every finding MUST reference file:line of established pattern. No reference = not established = don't report.
{data suffix}
Per issue: file:line of violation, file:line of pattern, Severity, what is violated, how to fix.

Step 4: Synthesize

1. Filter remaining nits. 2. Deduplicate. 3. Resolve contradictions. 4. Sort by severity.

Step 5: Report (Japanese, display-only)

## コードレビュー結果

{header} | **変更ファイル数**: N

### 判断サマリー

判断が必要だったポイントのみ: エージェント間不一致、重要度調整、棄却とその理由。全員一致の指摘は含めない。

---

### 1. タイトル (`path:line`) (★★★)

> 問題の端的な説明。

対応方法。

Begin

Execute from Step 1.