Route the review

full-review spawns up to five reasoning agents that each read a real amount of code. On a four-line diff that is more expensive than the change was, and the extra lanes return nothing — which trains people to stop running reviews at all. This skill makes the lane selection a decision based on evidence in the diff, rather than a habit.

You decide which lanes run and how deep. You perform no review yourself.

Two rules bound everything below:

• Never route to zero lanes on a diff that touches first-party source. If the change is genuinely trivial, that is build-check plus a targeted code-audit, not silence.
• Name what you skipped and why, in the output. A lane that was never run must never read as a lane that came back clean. This is the same failure full-review guards against when an agent dies.

1. Resolve scope and stack once

Per .claude/review/CONVENTIONS.md §1 and §3. Resolve both here, exactly once, and pass the identical strings to every agent you spawn. Agents that resolve their own scope drift apart and their findings stop being comparable — and in a monorepo they can legitimately land on different stacks, which silently produces reviews of different things.

2. Measure the diff before you classify it

Get the shape of the change from git, not from a guess:

git diff <base>...HEAD --stat
git diff <base>...HEAD --name-only

Record: files changed, lines added/removed, and which subsystems are touched. Then subtract everything CONVENTIONS.md §3 excludes — lockfiles, generated clients, build output, vendored code. A 4,000-line diff that is 3,900 lines of lockfile is a 100-line diff, and misreading that is the most common way a router over-spends.

If, after exclusions, the change touches no first-party source at all — docs only, config comments, a lockfile refresh — say so and stop. Offer build-check alone. Do not spawn reasoning agents to review prose.

3. Map evidence to lanes

A lane runs when the diff contains evidence that its class of defect is possible. The signal is the file and the construct, not the topic of the commit message.

Evidence means you looked. Grepping the filename is enough to consider a lane; before committing an expensive lane, open at least one of the files that triggered it and confirm the construct is really there. A route based on a filename pattern that turns out to be a test fixture is a wasted agent.

4. Set depth from size, not from ambition

After exclusions:

Escalate a tier when the change touches auth, payments, migrations, or a public API contract, regardless of line count. A twelve-line change to a permission check is not a trivial change.

De-escalate when the diff is mechanical and uniform — a rename across forty files, a codemod, a formatter pass. Forty files of the same edit is one edit; review the pattern once and spot-check, rather than spawning lanes to read it forty times.

5. Show the decision before spending

Print the plan and the estimated cost, then run it. For Medium and above, ask first if the user did not explicitly ask for a review — routing is cheap, agents are not.

## Review plan — <scope>

**Diff:** 7 files, +182 / −34 (excluded: `pnpm-lock.yaml`, 3,908 lines)
**Stack:** <detected once, passed down>
**Tier:** Medium

| Lane | Run | Why |
|---|---|---|
| build-check | ✅ | always |
| code-audit | ✅ | 5 source files, new async control flow |
| security-audit | ✅ | `api/session.ts` — token handling changed |
| perf-audit | ✅ | query inside `map()` in `loadOrders` |
| a11y-audit | ⏭️ | no component or template files in the diff |
| design-check | ⏭️ | no spec found — run `spec-extract` if you want this lane |
| second-opinion | ⏭️ | not proposed: no money, migration or auth-model change |

**Estimated:** 3 reasoning agents + build. Roughly a third of a `full-review`.

Relative cost, for calibration: build-check is near-free; each reasoning lane is one agent reading real code; full-review is up to five of those plus a merge; second-opinion is a fresh process with no prompt-cache reuse (roughly $0.20–$1.00 a run). On a subscription, a habit of full sweeps on small diffs is what burns the limit.

6. Execute

Run build-check yourself first, synchronously. It is decisive:

• Fails on a compile or type error → stop. Report it and ask whether to fix first. Reasoning review of code that does not compile is largely wasted; the file is about to change and half the findings evaporate with the fix.
• Fails on lint only → carry on, fold the findings in.
• Passes → carry on, and pass any size or timing output to the perf lane so it starts from a measurement rather than a guess.

Then spawn one general-purpose agent per selected lane, all in a single message so they run concurrently, using the prompt shape from full-review §3 — same scope string, same pre-detected stack, same "stay in your lane", same "write the report to disk and return only the verdict, one line per finding, and the path". That last part is what keeps this affordable.

If four or more lanes come out of step 3, stop routing and invoke full-review instead. Its dedupe and global re-rank exist precisely because parallel lanes overlap at that width, and reproducing a worse version of that merge here is the one way this skill makes things worse rather than cheaper.

For one or two lanes, merge them yourself: read the report files, dedupe by file:line, rank by real-world consequence rather than by each lane's internal severity, and write the combined report per the conventions' output contract.

7. Report, including the road not taken

Whatever the outcome, the final report ends with the routing decision:

## Not covered
- `a11y-audit` — not run: no UI files in scope
- `design-check` — not run: no spec exists
- Runtime behavior — no lane here runs the app; `feature-verify` does

If the user disagrees with a route, they can name a lane and you run it — an explicit request always wins. Record the correction: a lane the user has had to ask for twice is a signal that the mapping in §3 is wrong for this project, and it belongs in your agent-rules file (AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md) rather than in their memory.

Lifecycle

Lane: full Writes: the review routing decision Read by: the human, full-review Dies: after the selected review lanes finish Next: full-review