---

name: reviewing-code description: Reviews implemented code for security, quality, performance, and test coverage using specialized review agents. Use when task file is in review/ directory and requires comprehensive code review before approval. Launches test-coverage-analyzer, error-handling-reviewer, and security-reviewer in parallel.

Review

Given task file path .plans/<project>/review/NNN-task.md:

Process

1. Initial Review:

   • Run git diff on Files listed
   • Read test files
   • Run tests to verify passing
   • Check Validation checkboxes marked [x]
   • Score (0-100 each): Security, Quality, Performance, Tests

2. Specialized Review (Parallel Agents): Launch 3 review agents in parallel for deep analysis:

   • test-coverage-analyzer: Identifies critical test gaps (1-10 criticality ratings)
   • error-handling-reviewer: Finds silent failures and poor error handling (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM severity)
   • security-reviewer: Checks for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities (0-100 confidence scores)

   Agents run in separate contexts and return scored findings.

3. Consolidate Findings:

   • Combine initial review with agent findings
   • Filter by confidence/severity:
     • CRITICAL: Security 90-100 confidence, Error handling CRITICAL, Test gaps 9-10
     • HIGH: Security 70-89, Error handling HIGH, Test gaps 7-8
     • MEDIUM: Security 50-69, Error handling MEDIUM, Test gaps 5-6
   • Drop low-confidence issues (<50)
   • Prioritize by severity

4. Decide - APPROVE or REJECT:

   • APPROVE: Security ≥80, no CRITICAL findings from agents
   • REJECT: Security <80 OR any CRITICAL findings
   • HIGH findings acceptable with justification

5. Update task status using Edit tool:

   • If approved: Find **Status:** [current status] → Replace **Status:** APPROVED
   • If rejected: Find **Status:** [current status] → Replace **Status:** REJECTED

6. Append notes (see formats below) - include agent findings

7. Report completion

Review Focus

Area	Check
Security	Input validation, auth checks, secrets in env, rate limiting, SQL parameterized
Quality	Readable, no duplication, error handling, follows patterns, diff <500 lines
Performance	No N+1 queries, efficient algorithms, proper indexing
Tests	Covers Validation, behavior-focused, edge cases, error paths, suite passing

Invoking Specialized Agents

After initial review, invoke agents in parallel using the Task tool with subagent_type="general-purpose":

Launch all three agents simultaneously using Task tool:

Task(
  description: "Analyze test coverage",
  prompt: "You are test-coverage-analyzer. Analyze test coverage for:
    Task file: [task_file_path]
    Test files: [list test files]
    Implementation files: [list impl files]
    [Include full agent prompt from experimental/agents/review/test-coverage-analyzer.md]",
  subagent_type: "general-purpose"
)

Task(
  description: "Review error handling",
  prompt: "You are error-handling-reviewer. Review error handling in:
    Task file: [task_file_path]
    Implementation files: [list impl files]
    [Include full agent prompt from experimental/agents/review/error-handling-reviewer.md]",
  subagent_type: "general-purpose"
)

Task(
  description: "Security review",
  prompt: "You are security-reviewer. Review security in:
    Task file: [task_file_path]
    Implementation files: [list impl files]
    [Include full agent prompt from experimental/agents/review/security-reviewer.md]",
  subagent_type: "general-purpose"
)

Call all three Task invocations in a single message to run them in parallel.

Each agent returns:

• test-coverage-analyzer: List of test gaps with 1-10 criticality scores
• error-handling-reviewer: List of error handling issues with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM severity
• security-reviewer: List of vulnerabilities with 0-100 confidence scores and OWASP categories

Consolidate findings using the confidence/severity mappings from Process step 3.

Approval Format

**review:**
Security: 90/100 | Quality: 95/100 | Performance: 95/100 | Tests: 90/100

Working Result verified: ✓ [description]
Validation: 4/4 passing
Full test suite: [M]/[M] passing
Diff: [N] lines

**Specialized Review Findings:**
- Test Coverage: No CRITICAL gaps (0 gaps rated 9-10)
- Error Handling: 1 HIGH finding - [description with justification why acceptable]
- Security: No vulnerabilities detected (0 findings >70 confidence)

APPROVED → testing

Rejection Format

**review:**
Security: 65/100 | Quality: 85/100 | Performance: 90/100 | Tests: 75/100

**Specialized Review Findings:**

CRITICAL Issues (must fix):
1. [Security/Test/Error] - [Description from agent] - [Confidence/Severity/Criticality score]
2. [Security/Test/Error] - [Description from agent] - [Confidence/Severity/Criticality score]

HIGH Issues (review recommended):
1. [Security/Test/Error] - [Description from agent] - [Confidence/Severity/Criticality score]

REJECTED - Blocking issues:
1. [Specific issue + fix needed]
2. [Specific issue + fix needed]

Required actions:
- [Action 1 - address CRITICAL findings]
- [Action 2 - address blocking issues]
- [Action 3 - consider HIGH findings]

REJECTED → implementation

Blocking Thresholds

Must REJECT if any:

• Security score <80
• Critical vulnerability from initial review
• Any CRITICAL findings from specialized agents (Security 90-100 confidence, Error handling CRITICAL, Test gaps 9-10)
• Tests failing
• Validation incomplete
• Working Result not achieved

Can APPROVE with HIGH findings if:

• Security score ≥80
• No CRITICAL findings
• HIGH findings include justification why acceptable
• All tests passing
• Validation complete

Completion

When review is complete (status updated to APPROVED or REJECTED):

• Report: ✅ Review complete. Status: [STATUS]