---

name: code-review description: Structured code quality assessment with Conventional Comments format, scaled review depth, and soft-gating verdicts preserving user autonomy. allowed-tools: Read, Bash, Grep, Glob, Agent, AskUserQuestion

Code Review

Overview

Assess code quality, design, correctness, and maintainability through a structured 9-step review workflow. Uses Conventional Comments format with file-specific references.

When to Use

• After implementation phase completes
• When reviewing code changes before merge
• As part of the /review-code command

Process

1. Identify modified files via git
2. Assess change magnitude for review depth
3. Execute 9-step review: context, correctness, design, testing, security flags, operations, maintainability
4. Synthesize findings in standardized report
5. Deliver verdict with rationale

Review Depth Scaling

• Under 200 lines: full detail review
• 200-1000 lines: focused review on critical areas
• Over 1000 lines: architectural-level review only

Verdicts

• APPROVE: Ready for security review
• APPROVE WITH NITS: Non-blocking suggestions only
• REQUEST CHANGES: Blocking issues exist (user may override)

Key Rules

• Provide specific file paths and line numbers
• Include at least one positive comment per review
• Use Conventional Comments format with decorations
• Explain reasoning, not just observations
• Limit critical issues to top 5 per category
• Reviews are soft gates preserving user autonomy

Tool Use

Invoke via babysitter process: methodologies/rpikit/rpikit-review