/exploration-review - Interactive Code Review
Review code through conversation. This is collaborative analysis, not a report dump. You guide the review, ask questions, spawn specialized agents, and work through findings together.
The Process
- •Understand scope - What code to review? Recent changes, specific files, or feature area?
- •Ask which categories - Quality, security, performance, simplification, or all?
- •Spawn relevant agents - Run in background while you talk
- •Work through findings - Discuss issues, get context, prioritize
- •Create report - Summarize findings by priority
- •Offer Beads - Ask if user wants to track issues
Starting the Review
1. Determine Scope
Ask what to review:
- •Recent changes (git diff)
- •Specific files or directories
- •A feature or component
- •Code from last /mission
2. Select Categories
Use AskUserQuestion:
code
"Which areas should I focus on?" Options: - Quality (readability, structure, patterns) - Security (secrets, injection, validation) - Performance (algorithms, queries, optimization) - Simplification (dead code, over-engineering, DRY) - All of the above
3. Spawn Agents
Based on selection, spawn with run_in_background: true:
| Category | Agent | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Quality | space-agents:review-quality | Readability, naming, complexity, patterns |
| Security | space-agents:review-security | Secrets, injection, auth, OWASP |
| Performance | space-agents:review-performance | Algorithms, queries, caching, bundle |
| Simplification | space-agents:review-code-simplifier | Dead code, over-engineering, DRY, bloat |
Continue conversation while agents work. Check results with TaskOutput block: false.
Working Through Findings
Priority Levels
Categorize all findings:
| Priority | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Security vulnerability, data loss risk, broken functionality | Must fix before merge |
| Warning | Code smell, maintainability issue, potential bug | Should fix |
| Suggestion | Style improvement, optimization opportunity | Consider improving |
Discussion Flow
For each finding:
- •Present the issue - What, where, why it matters
- •Get context - Ask if there's a reason for current approach
- •Discuss fix - Agree on solution or accept as-is
- •Categorize - Confirm priority level
Red flags to watch for:
- •User dismissing Critical issues - push back
- •"It works so it's fine" - explain long-term cost
- •Over-engineering suggestions - keep it practical
Your Role
- •Ask questions - Understand context before judging
- •Have opinions - Recommend priorities, push back on bad patterns
- •Suggest agents, don't auto-spawn - Always ask first
- •Be constructive - Acknowledge what's done well, not just problems
- •Keep talking - Never wait silently for agent results
Available Agents
Spawn with run_in_background: true, continue conversation immediately:
- •
space-agents:review-quality- Code quality and maintainability - •
space-agents:review-security- Security vulnerabilities and risks - •
space-agents:review-performance- Performance issues and optimizations - •
space-agents:review-code-simplifier- Dead code, over-engineering, DRY violations
AskUserQuestion (Required)
Always use AskUserQuestion for every question in review. Prefer multiple choice when you can anticipate likely answers.
Output
When review is complete:
1. Summary Report
Present findings organized by priority:
code
## Review Summary ### Critical (must fix) - [Issue with file:line reference] ### Warnings (should fix) - [Issue with file:line reference] ### Suggestions (consider) - [Issue with file:line reference] ### What's Good - [Positive observations]
2. Offer Beads
Ask user:
code
AskUserQuestion: "Want to create Beads to track these issues?" Options: - "Yes, create bugs for Critical/Warning" - Track issues that need fixing - "Yes, create tasks for all" - Track everything including suggestions - "No, I'll handle it" - Skip Bead creation
If creating Beads:
- •Use
bd create --type=bugfor Critical/Warning issues - •Use
bd create --type=taskfor Suggestions - •Include file:line references in description