Automated summary
This skill orchestrates multi-dimensional code reviews in parallel, generating unified and prioritized feedback for pull requests, security audits, performance reviews, and architecture reviews.
Strengths
- Parallel analysis across multiple dimensions (code quality, security, performance, architecture)
- Unified synthesis with prioritized findings
- Supports multiple review types (PR, security, performance, architecture)
- Scalable through specialized sub-agents
Limitations
- Requires careful coordination of sub-agents
- May produce overlapping results between dimensions
- Depends on model quality for each dimension
Use this skill for comprehensive code reviews that require multi-faceted analysis and structured feedback.
Avoid for trivial changes or minor modifications that do not warrant extensive orchestration.
Security analysis
SafeThe skill describes code review orchestration patterns using task management and subagents. It contains no instructions for destructive, exfiltrating, or obfuscated actions. No commands like curl, sh, rm, or secret handling are present. The bash examples use 'npx cc-mirror tasks create' for task management, which is not inherently dangerous.
No concerns found
How this analysis is madeExamples
Review PR #123Security audit the authentication moduleFind performance bottlenecksCode Review Orchestration Patterns
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Reviews should be thorough, fast, and actionable. │
│ Parallel analysis. Unified feedback. Clear priorities. │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Load when: PR review, security audit, performance review, architecture review, pre-merge validation Common patterns: Multi-Dimensional Analysis, OWASP-Parallel, Layer-by-Layer
Table of Contents
Pull Request Review
Pattern: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
User Request: "Review PR #123"
Phase 1: FAN-OUT (Parallel analysis dimensions)
├─ Explore agent: Understand PR context, related issues
├─ Agent A: Code quality analysis (style, patterns, DRY)
├─ Agent B: Logic correctness (edge cases, error handling)
├─ Agent C: Security implications
└─ Agent D: Performance implications
Phase 2: REDUCE (Synthesize)
└─ General-purpose agent: Aggregate findings, prioritize, format review
Implementation:
# All in single message for parallelism (opus for reviews - critical thinking)
Task(subagent_type="Explore", prompt="Fetch PR #123 details, understand context and related issues",
model="haiku", run_in_background=True)
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="Review code quality: patterns, readability, maintainability",
model="opus", run_in_background=True)
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="Review logic: correctness, edge cases, error handling",
model="opus", run_in_background=True)
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="Review security: injection, auth, data exposure",
model="opus", run_in_background=True)
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="Review performance: complexity, queries, memory",
model="opus", run_in_background=True)
Security Audit
Pattern: OWASP-Parallel
User Request: "Security audit the authentication module"
Phase 1: FAN-OUT (OWASP categories in parallel)
├─ Agent A: Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, XSS)
├─ Agent B: Authentication/session issues
├─ Agent C: Access control problems
├─ Agent D: Cryptographic weaknesses
├─ Agent E: Data exposure risks
└─ Agent F: Security misconfiguration
Phase 2: REDUCE
└─ General-purpose agent: Risk-ranked findings with remediation
Pattern: Attack Surface Mapping
Phase 1: EXPLORE
└─ Explore agent: Map all entry points (APIs, forms, file uploads)
Phase 2: FAN-OUT (Per entry point)
├─ Agent per entry point: Analyze input validation, sanitization
Phase 3: PIPELINE
└─ General-purpose agent: Threat model, prioritized vulnerabilities
Performance Review
Pattern: Layer-by-Layer
User Request: "Find performance bottlenecks"
Phase 1: FAN-OUT (Analyze each layer)
├─ Agent A: Database queries (N+1, missing indexes, slow queries)
├─ Agent B: API layer (response times, payload sizes)
├─ Agent C: Frontend (bundle size, render performance)
└─ Agent D: Infrastructure (caching, connection pooling)
Phase 2: REDUCE
└─ General-purpose agent: Prioritized optimization roadmap
Pattern: Complexity Audit
Phase 1: MAP
└─ Explore agent: Find all functions, measure complexity
Phase 2: FAN-OUT (High complexity functions)
├─ Agent A: Analyze function X, suggest optimizations
├─ Agent B: Analyze function Y, suggest optimizations
└─ Agent C: Analyze function Z, suggest optimizations
Architecture Review
Pattern: Multi-Stakeholder
User Request: "Review system architecture"
Phase 1: FAN-OUT (Perspectives)
├─ Agent A: Scalability assessment
├─ Agent B: Maintainability assessment
├─ Agent C: Security architecture
├─ Agent D: Cost efficiency
└─ Agent E: Developer experience
Phase 2: REDUCE
└─ Plan agent: Synthesize into architecture decision record
Pattern: Dependency Analysis
Phase 1: EXPLORE
└─ Explore agent: Map all module dependencies
Phase 2: FAN-OUT
├─ Agent A: Identify circular dependencies
├─ Agent B: Find coupling hotspots
└─ Agent C: Assess abstraction boundaries
Phase 3: PIPELINE
└─ Plan agent: Recommend architectural improvements
Pre-merge Validation
Pattern: Comprehensive Gate
User Request: "Validate PR ready for merge"
Phase 1: FAN-OUT (All checks in parallel)
├─ Background agent: Run full test suite
├─ Agent A: Verify all review comments addressed
├─ Agent B: Check for merge conflicts
├─ Agent C: Validate documentation updated
└─ Agent D: Confirm CI checks passing
Phase 2: REDUCE
└─ General-purpose agent: Go/no-go recommendation with blockers
Review Output Formats
Structured Review Template
## Summary
[1-2 sentence overview]
## Risk Assessment
- **Security**: Low/Medium/High
- **Performance**: Low/Medium/High
- **Breaking Changes**: Yes/No
## Must Fix (Blocking)
1. [Critical issue with line reference]
## Should Fix (Non-blocking)
1. [Important improvement]
## Consider (Optional)
1. [Nice-to-have suggestion]
## Positive Notes
- [What was done well]
Task Management for Reviews
For comprehensive reviews, create parallel analysis tasks:
# Create review tasks (can run in parallel)
npx cc-mirror tasks create --subject "Analyze PR context" --description "Understand changes, related issues..."
npx cc-mirror tasks create --subject "Review code quality" --description "Patterns, readability, maintainability..."
npx cc-mirror tasks create --subject "Check security" --description "Injection, auth, data exposure..."
npx cc-mirror tasks create --subject "Assess performance" --description "Complexity, queries, memory..."
npx cc-mirror tasks create --subject "Synthesize review" --description "Aggregate findings into review..."
# Synthesis blocked by analysis tasks
npx cc-mirror tasks update 5 --add-blocked-by 1,2,3,4
# Spawn parallel agents for analysis (opus for reviews - critical thinking)
Task(subagent_type="Explore", prompt="Task 1: Analyze PR context...",
model="haiku", run_in_background=True)
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="Task 2: Review code quality...",
model="opus", run_in_background=True)
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="Task 3: Check security...",
model="opus", run_in_background=True)
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="Task 4: Assess performance...",
model="opus", run_in_background=True)
─── ◈ Code Review ───────────────────────
From the file to a first result
The download contains exactly the content displayed on this page. This copy may differ from the latest version in the source repository.
View the source and supporting filesThis download contains SKILL.md only. Any scripts, references, templates and dependencies are not included. Get the required files from the source, preserving their directory structure, before continuing.
1. Download the file
Download SKILL.mdFrom the root of a test project, save the file as .skill-downloads/code-review-orchestration-patterns-mm5t8cjt/SKILL.md, or use the command below. This folder is for inspecting the skill before installation.
Command for macOS/Linux or WSL: requires a POSIX shell and curl. On Windows without WSL, use the download button and create the folder manually.
mkdir -p '.skill-downloads/code-review-orchestration-patterns-mm5t8cjt' && curl --fail --show-error --location 'https://skills-guides.com/api/skills/code-review-orchestration-patterns-mm5t8cjt/download' --output '.skill-downloads/code-review-orchestration-patterns-mm5t8cjt/SKILL.md.part' && mv '.skill-downloads/code-review-orchestration-patterns-mm5t8cjt/SKILL.md.part' '.skill-downloads/code-review-orchestration-patterns-mm5t8cjt/SKILL.md'2. Check prerequisites
Read SKILL.md before using it. If it references scripts or external services, inspect them and prepare the required access in your test environment.
No recognized prerequisites section in this file. This does not mean it is self-contained: libraries, tools and access requirements may be mentioned elsewhere in the content or source repository.
The platforms on this page are catalog indications. The paths below follow tool documentation; they do not prove this skill has been run in those tools. No minimum tool version is confirmed for this listing.
3. Load the skill
This file does not provide a usable name/description header for this native procedure. It remains available to download and inspect; use the manual method below.
Manual method or another tool: attach SKILL.md to a conversation, or open it in an agent that can read files. Include any required supporting resources. No universal folder is recognized by every tool.
4. Try a first task
Use a short, synthetic input: an API endpoint, a small document or an interface brief. In a new conversation, attach the file or give the agent its path, then adapt this request:
Read .skill-downloads/code-review-orchestration-patterns-mm5t8cjt/SKILL.md and apply its instructions to this example: [describe a test input]. Identify any missing files, dependencies or access. Produce the result requested by the skill without inventing data or running unreviewed scripts.Expected result: output matching the skill instructions, or a precise list of missing prerequisites. A read confirmation alone does not validate a first use. If an external resource is unavailable, that path remains untested.
React Hook Form Best Practices
Development
Master React Hook Form: avoid anti-patterns, manage subscriptions, and handle reset, dirty state, and controlled inputs correctly.
Emotion to Mantine Migration
Development
Migrate Emotion styled-components to Mantine components with style props and CSS modules. Use when converting .styled.tsx files or removing @emotion imports.
Scope Creep Detector
Development
Analyzes git diffs against a stated intent to detect scope creep, unrelated files, broad PRs, and oversized changes, then suggests keep, split, or justify actions.