ring/default/commands/codereview.md

name	description	argument-hint
codereview	Run comprehensive parallel code review with all 3 specialized reviewers	[files-or-paths]

Dispatch all 3 specialized code reviewers in parallel, collect their reports, and provide a consolidated analysis.

Review Process

Step 1: Dispatch All Three Reviewers in Parallel

CRITICAL: Use a single message with 3 Task tool calls to launch all reviewers simultaneously.

Gather the required context first:

• WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Summary of changes made
• PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Original plan or requirements (if available)
• BASE_SHA: Base commit for comparison (if applicable)
• HEAD_SHA: Head commit for comparison (if applicable)
• DESCRIPTION: Additional context about the changes

Then dispatch all 3 reviewers:

Task tool #1 (ring:code-reviewer):
  model: "opus"
  description: "Review code quality and architecture"
  prompt: |
    WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: [summary of changes]
    PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: [original plan/requirements]
    BASE_SHA: [base commit if applicable]
    HEAD_SHA: [head commit if applicable]
    DESCRIPTION: [additional context]

Task tool #2 (ring:business-logic-reviewer):
  model: "opus"
  description: "Review business logic correctness"
  prompt: |
    [Same parameters as above]

Task tool #3 (ring:security-reviewer):
  model: "opus"
  description: "Review security vulnerabilities"
  prompt: |
    [Same parameters as above]

Wait for all three reviewers to complete their work.

Step 2: Collect and Aggregate Reports

Each reviewer returns:

• Verdict: PASS/FAIL/NEEDS_DISCUSSION
• Strengths: What was done well
• Issues: Categorized by severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low/Cosmetic)
• Recommendations: Specific actionable feedback

Consolidate all issues by severity across all three reviewers.

Step 3: Provide Consolidated Report

Return a consolidated report in this format:

# Full Review Report

## VERDICT: [PASS | FAIL | NEEDS_DISCUSSION]

## Executive Summary

[2-3 sentences about overall review across all gates]

**Total Issues:**
- Critical: [N across all gates]
- High: [N across all gates]
- Medium: [N across all gates]
- Low: [N across all gates]

---

## Code Quality Review (Foundation)

**Verdict:** [PASS | FAIL]
**Issues:** Critical [N], High [N], Medium [N], Low [N]

### Critical Issues
[List all critical code quality issues]

### High Issues
[List all high code quality issues]

[Medium/Low issues summary]

---

## Business Logic Review (Correctness)

**Verdict:** [PASS | FAIL]
**Issues:** Critical [N], High [N], Medium [N], Low [N]

### Critical Issues
[List all critical business logic issues]

### High Issues
[List all high business logic issues]

[Medium/Low issues summary]

---

## Security Review (Safety)

**Verdict:** [PASS | FAIL]
**Issues:** Critical [N], High [N], Medium [N], Low [N]

### Critical Vulnerabilities
[List all critical security vulnerabilities]

### High Vulnerabilities
[List all high security vulnerabilities]

[Medium/Low vulnerabilities summary]

---

## Consolidated Action Items

**MUST FIX (Critical):**
1. [Issue from any gate] - `file:line`
2. [Issue from any gate] - `file:line`

**SHOULD FIX (High):**
1. [Issue from any gate] - `file:line`
2. [Issue from any gate] - `file:line`

**CONSIDER (Medium/Low):**
[Brief list]

---

## Next Steps

**If PASS:**
- ✅ All 3 reviewers passed
- ✅ Ready for next step (merge/production)

**If FAIL:**
- ❌ Fix all Critical/High/Medium issues immediately
- ❌ Add TODO(review) comments for Low issues in code
- ❌ Add FIXME(nitpick) comments for Cosmetic/Nitpick issues in code
- ❌ Re-run all 3 reviewers in parallel after fixes

**If NEEDS_DISCUSSION:**
- 💬 [Specific discussion points across gates]

Severity-Based Action Guide

After producing the consolidated report, provide clear guidance:

Critical/High/Medium Issues:

These issues MUST be fixed immediately:
1. [Issue description] - file.ext:line - [Reviewer]
2. [Issue description] - file.ext:line - [Reviewer]

Recommended approach:
- Dispatch fix subagent to address all Critical/High/Medium issues
- After fixes complete, re-run all 3 reviewers in parallel to verify

Low Issues:

Add TODO comments in the code for these issues:

// TODO(review): [Issue description]
// Reported by: [reviewer-name] on [date]
// Severity: Low
// Location: file.ext:line

Cosmetic/Nitpick Issues:

Add FIXME comments in the code for these issues:

// FIXME(nitpick): [Issue description]
// Reported by: [reviewer-name] on [date]
// Severity: Cosmetic
// Location: file.ext:line

Remember

1. All reviewers are independent - They run in parallel, not sequentially
2. Dispatch all 3 reviewers in parallel - Single message, 3 Task calls
3. Specify model: "opus" - All reviewers need opus for comprehensive analysis
4. Wait for all to complete - Don't aggregate until all reports received
5. Consolidate findings by severity - Group all issues across reviewers
6. Provide clear action guidance - Tell user exactly what to fix vs. document
7. Overall FAIL if any reviewer fails - One failure means work needs fixes