Deep Code Review — Multi-Agent Analysis

You are orchestrating a comprehensive code review using 5 specialized reviewer agents running in parallel. This produces a detailed review document with severity-tagged findings.

Scope

The review scope is: $ARGUMENTS (default: all — review the entire src/ directory)

Instructions

1. Prepare the review

•Generate a timestamp in ISO format (e.g., 2024-01-15T14:30:00)
•
Determine files to review:
- •If scope is all or empty: all .ts files under src/
- •If scope is a directory: all .ts files under that directory
- •If scope is a glob: matching files
•
Read the reference checklists:
- •.claude/skills/deep-review/references/review-checklist.md
- •.claude/skills/deep-review/references/security-checklist.md
•Check if the coding standard exists at .claude/docs/TypeScript Coding Standard for Mission-Critical Systems.md and load it if present

2. Launch 5 parallel reviewer agents

Use the Task tool to launch these 5 agents in parallel. Each agent should receive:

•The list of files to review
•The relevant checklist/standard sections
•Instructions to output findings in the structured format below

Read the agent definitions from .claude/agents/ for each reviewer's specific instructions:

Agent 1: Security Reviewer

•Agent definition: .claude/agents/security-reviewer.md
•Focus: OWASP Top 10, input validation (Rules 7.2, 7.4), secrets, injection, crypto

Agent 2: Standards Reviewer

•Agent definition: .claude/agents/standards-reviewer.md
•Focus: All shall-level rules from the coding standard

Agent 3: YAGNI Reviewer

•Agent definition: .claude/agents/yagni-reviewer.md
•Focus: Over-engineering, dead code, unnecessary abstractions, premature optimization

Agent 4: Architecture Reviewer

•Agent definition: .claude/agents/architecture-reviewer.md
•Focus: Modularity (Rule 10.3), dependency direction, SOLID principles, circular deps

Agent 5: Goal Reviewer

•Agent definition: .claude/agents/goal-reviewer.md
•Focus: Does the code achieve its stated goals? Edge cases? Completeness?

3. Consolidate findings

After all 5 agents complete, merge their findings into a single review document.

Each finding should be tagged with a severity:

•🔴 CRITICAL — Must fix. Security vulnerability, data loss risk, or standard violation that could cause runtime failure
•🟠 HIGH — Should fix. Significant standard violation or architectural concern
•🟡 MEDIUM — Consider fixing. Minor standard deviation or improvement opportunity
•🔵 LOW — Nice to have. Style suggestion or minor optimization

De-duplicate findings that appear in multiple reviewers' output (keep the highest severity).

4. Write the review document

Create the directory docs/reviews/ if it doesn't exist, then write the consolidated review to docs/reviews/review-${TIMESTAMP}.md:

markdown

# Deep Code Review — ${TIMESTAMP}

**Scope**: ${SCOPE}
**Files reviewed**: N
**Reviewers**: Security, Standards, YAGNI, Architecture, Goal

## Executive Summary

<2-4 sentences summarizing overall code quality and top concerns>

**Findings**: N total (X critical, Y high, Z medium, W low)

## Critical Findings

- [ ] 🔴 `file.ts:42` — **[Security]** Description
- [ ] 🔴 `file.ts:15` — **[Standards]** Description

## High Findings

- [ ] 🟠 `file.ts:88` — **[Architecture]** Description

## Medium Findings

- [ ] 🟡 `file.ts:22` — **[YAGNI]** Description

## Low Findings

- [ ] 🔵 `file.ts:5` — **[Goal]** Description

## Per-Reviewer Details

### Security Review
<Security reviewer's detailed findings>

### Standards Compliance Review
<Standards reviewer's detailed findings>

### YAGNI Review
<YAGNI reviewer's detailed findings>

### Architecture Review
<Architecture reviewer's detailed findings>

### Goal Alignment Review
<Goal reviewer's detailed findings>

## Recommendations

1. Prioritized list of actions
2. ...

---
*Generated by /deep-review on ${TIMESTAMP}*

5. Report to user

•Show the file path of the generated review
•Display the executive summary and critical findings count
•If there are critical findings, emphasize they must be addressed before deployment