Parallel Code Review Skill

Orchestrate three specialized code reviewers (Security, Business Logic, Architecture) in true parallel using the Fan-Out/Fan-In pattern. Each reviewer runs independently with domain-specific focus, then findings are aggregated by severity into a unified BLOCK/FIX/APPROVE verdict.

---

Instructions

Phase 1: IDENTIFY SCOPE

Goal: Determine changed files and select appropriate agents before dispatching.

Step 1: Read repository CLAUDE.md to load project-specific conventions.

Step 2: List changed files

git diff --name-only HEAD~1
# or for PRs:
gh pr view --json files -q '.files[].path'

Step 3: Select architecture reviewer agent based on dominant language.

Gate: Changed files listed, architecture reviewer agent selected.

Phase 2: DISPATCH PARALLEL REVIEWERS

Goal: Launch all 3 reviewers in a single message for true concurrent execution.

Critical constraint: All three Task calls MUST appear in ONE response.

Reviewer 1 -- Security: OWASP Top 10, authentication, authorization, input validation, secrets exposure.

Reviewer 2 -- Business Logic: Requirements coverage, edge cases, state transitions, data validation, failure modes.

Reviewer 3 -- Architecture: Design patterns, naming, structure, performance, maintainability.

Gate: All 3 Task calls dispatched in a single message. Proceed only when ALL 3 return results.

Phase 3: AGGREGATE

Goal: Merge all findings into a unified severity-classified report.

Severity	Meaning	Action
CRITICAL	Security vulnerability, data loss risk	BLOCK merge
HIGH	Significant bug, logic error	Fix before merge
MEDIUM	Code quality issue, potential problem	Should fix
LOW	Minor issue, style preference	Nice to have

Deduplicate overlapping findings. Keep the highest severity.

Gate: All findings classified, deduplicated, and summarized.

Phase 4: VERDICT

Condition	Verdict
Any CRITICAL findings	BLOCK
HIGH findings, no CRITICAL	FIX (fix before merge)
Only MEDIUM/LOW findings	APPROVE (with suggestions)

Gate: Structured report delivered with verdict. Review is complete.

---

Error Handling

Error	Solution
Reviewer times out	Report partial findings, note blind spots
All reviewers fail	Verify file paths, reduce scope, fall back to systematic-code-review
Conflicting findings	Keep higher severity, include both perspectives