Table of Contents
- Quick Start
- When to Use
- Review Skill Selection Matrix
- Workflow
- 1. Analyze Repository Context
- 2. Select Review Skills
- 3. Execute Reviews
- 4. Integrate Findings
- Review Modes
- Auto-Detect (default)
- Focused Mode
- Full Review Mode
- Quality Gates
- Deliverables
- Executive Summary
- Domain-Specific Reports
- Integrated Action Plan
- Modular Architecture
- Exit Criteria
Unified Review Orchestration
Intelligently selects and executes appropriate review skills based on codebase analysis and context.
Quick Start
# Auto-detect and run appropriate reviews
/full-review
# Focus on specific areas
/full-review api # API surface review
/full-review architecture # Architecture review
/full-review bugs # Bug hunting
/full-review tests # Test suite review
/full-review all # Run all applicable skills
Verification: Run pytest -v to verify tests pass.
When To Use
- Starting a full code review
- Reviewing changes across multiple domains
- Need intelligent selection of review skills
- Want integrated reporting from multiple review types
- Before merging major feature branches
When NOT To Use
- Specific review type known
- use bug-review
- Test-review
- Architecture-only focus - use architecture-review
- Specific review type known
- use bug-review
Review Skill Selection Matrix
| Codebase Pattern | Review Skills | Triggers |
|-----------------|---------------|----------|
| Rust files (*.rs, Cargo.toml) | rust-review, bug-review, api-review | Rust project detected |
| API changes (openapi.yaml, routes/) | api-review, architecture-review | Public API surfaces |
| Test files (test_*.py, *_test.go) | test-review, bug-review | Test infrastructure |
| Makefile/build system | makefile-review, architecture-review | Build complexity |
| Mathematical algorithms | math-review, bug-review | Numerical computation |
| Architecture docs/ADRs | architecture-review, api-review | System design |
| General code quality | bug-review, test-review | Default review |
Workflow
1. Analyze Repository Context
- Detect primary languages from extensions and manifests
- Analyze git status and diffs for change scope
- Identify project structure (monorepo, microservices, library)
- Detect build systems, testing frameworks, documentation
2. Select Review Skills
# Detection logic
if has_rust_files():
schedule_skill("rust-review")
if has_api_changes():
schedule_skill("api-review")
if has_test_files():
schedule_skill("test-review")
if has_makefiles():
schedule_skill("makefile-review")
if has_math_code():
schedule_skill("math-review")
if has_architecture_changes():
schedule_skill("architecture-review")
# Default
schedule_skill("bug-review")
Verification: Run pytest -v to verify tests pass.
3. Execute Reviews
Dispatch selected skills concurrently via the Agent tool. Use this mapping to resolve skill names to agent types:
| Skill Name | Agent Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| bug-review | pensive:code-reviewer | Covers bugs, API, tests |
| api-review | pensive:code-reviewer | Same agent, API focus |
| test-review | pensive:code-reviewer | Same agent, test focus |
| architecture-review | pensive:architecture-reviewer | ADR compliance |
| rust-review | pensive:rust-auditor | Rust-specific |
| code-refinement | pensive:code-refiner | Duplication, quality |
| math-review | general-purpose | Prompt: invoke Skill(pensive:math-review) |
| makefile-review | general-purpose | Prompt: invoke Skill(pensive:makefile-review) |
| shell-review | general-purpose | Prompt: invoke Skill(pensive:shell-review) |
Rules:
- Never use skill names as agent types (e.g.,
pensive:math-reviewis NOT an agent) - When
pensive:code-reviewercovers multiple domains, dispatch once with combined scope - For skills without dedicated agents, use
general-purposeand instruct it to invoke the Skill tool - Maintain consistent evidence logging across all agents
- Track progress via TodoWrite
4. Integrate Findings
- Consolidate findings across domains
- Identify cross-domain patterns
- Prioritize by impact and effort
- Generate unified action plan
Deferred capture for backlog findings: Findings that are triaged to the backlog (out-of-scope for the current review or deferred by the team) should be preserved so they are not lost between review cycles. For each finding assigned to the backlog, run:
python3 scripts/deferred_capture.py \
--title "<finding title>" \
--source review \
--context "Review dimension: <dimension>. <finding description>"
The <dimension> value should match the review skill that
surfaced the finding (e.g. bug-review, api-review,
architecture-review).
This runs automatically after the action plan is finalised,
without prompting the user.
Review Modes
Auto-Detect (default)
Automatically selects skills based on codebase analysis.
Focused Mode
Run specific review domains:
/full-review api→ api-review only/full-review architecture→ architecture-review only/full-review bugs→ bug-review only/full-review tests→ test-review only
Full Review Mode
Run all applicable review skills:
/full-review all→ Execute all detected skills
Quality Gates
Each review must:
- Establish proper context
- Execute all selected skills successfully
- Document findings with evidence
- Prioritize recommendations by impact
- Create action plan with owners
Deliverables
Executive Summary
- Overall codebase health assessment
- Critical issues requiring immediate attention
- Review frequency recommendations
Domain-Specific Reports
- API surface analysis and consistency
- Architecture alignment with ADRs
- Test coverage gaps and improvements
- Bug analysis and security findings
- Performance and maintainability recommendations
Integrated Action Plan
- Prioritized remediation tasks
- Cross-domain dependencies
- Assigned owners and target dates
- Follow-up review schedule
Modular Architecture
All review skills use a hub-and-spoke architecture with progressive loading:
pensive:shared: Common workflow, output templates, quality checklists- Each skill has
modules/: Domain-specific details loaded on demand - Cross-plugin deps:
imbue:proof-of-work,imbue:diff-analysis/modules/risk-assessment-framework
This reduces token usage by 50-70% for focused reviews while maintaining full capabilities.
Exit Criteria
- All selected review skills executed
- Findings consolidated and prioritized
- Action plan created with ownership
- Evidence logged per structured output format
Supporting Modules
- Review workflow core - standard 5-step workflow pattern for all pensive reviews
- Output format templates - finding entry, severity, action item templates
- Quality checklist patterns - pre-review, analysis, evidence, deliverable checklists
Troubleshooting
Common Issues
If the auto-detection fails to identify the correct review skills, explicitly specify the mode (e.g., /full-review rust instead of just /full-review). If integration fails, check that TodoWrite logs are accessible and that evidence files were correctly written by the individual skills.