review-full

This is a COMPREHENSIVE multi-agent code review. For quick anti-pattern scanning (seconds, not minutes), use review-diff instead.

Step 0: Detect scope and project

• If $ARGUMENTS is empty: review uncommitted changes (staged + unstaged via git diff + git diff --cached)
• If $ARGUMENTS is a file path: review that file only
• If $ARGUMENTS is a branch or range: review diff against that ref
• If $ARGUMENTS is "security": run security-only review (skip to step 3)
• Detect project type from cwd/CLAUDE.md and the project manifest (any language/framework), or fall back to inspecting the file structure

Step 1: Spawn review agents in parallel

Launch up to 4 agents based on what the changes touch:

If changes are small (<50 lines), run code-reviewer only. If security argument, run security-reviewer only. Add architecture-reviewer when the change reshapes structure (new module boundaries, files moved across layers, a refactor spanning several directories) rather than editing within existing files.

Step 2: Code quality review (via code-reviewer agent)

The agent checks:

• Readability and naming conventions (matches project patterns?)
• DRY: duplicated logic that should be extracted
• Error handling: all async paths covered? Consistent error shapes?
• Component/function size: single responsibility?
• Static-typing discipline where the language has it: no unchecked escapes (TypeScript any, Java raw Object, Go interface{}, etc.)

Step 3: Security review (via security-reviewer agent)

The agent checks OWASP Top 10 plus project-specific patterns (read from CLAUDE.md):

• Injection: SQL injection (raw queries without parameterization), command injection, XSS (unsanitized user input in templates)
• Auth gaps: New endpoints/handlers without auth middleware (@UseGuards, defineMiddleware, session check)
• Soft-delete violations: Hard DELETE/destroy used instead of soft-delete pattern (check CLAUDE.md for convention, e.g., is_active=false + deleted_at=new Date())
• Secrets exposure: Hardcoded tokens, passwords, API keys in code (not .env)
• API call patterns: Direct low-level fetch calls instead of the project's API composable (check CLAUDE.md)
• Navigation patterns: Raw router calls instead of the framework-specific navigation function (check CLAUDE.md)
• CORS/headers: Missing security headers, overly permissive CORS
• Dependency CVEs: Check for known vulnerabilities in changed dependencies

Step 4: Database review (via db-analyst agent, if applicable)

The agent checks:

• ORM null-handling: many ORMs distinguish "skip field" from "set NULL" (e.g. Prisma's undefined vs null); mixing them causes bugs
• Schema/code drift: unmodeled tables can be dropped by destructive sync commands (e.g. prisma db push); verify every table is represented
• N+1 queries: findMany/findFirst inside loops; should use include or batch queries
• Relation loading: Missing include for needed relations, or over-fetching with deep includes
• Migration safety: Schema changes that could drop data, rename columns, or break existing queries

Step 4b: Structural review (via architecture-reviewer agent, if applicable)

Run only when the change reshapes structure (new modules, files moved across layers, a multi-directory refactor). The agent checks:

• Dependency direction: do inner layers avoid importing outer ones? (domain/core should not depend on UI/framework)
• Circular dependencies: modules that import each other, directly or through a cycle
• God files/modules: single files accumulating unrelated responsibilities
• Dead code: exports/modules no longer imported anywhere
• Modularity: are boundaries between features/layers clear, or is logic leaking across them?

This is language-agnostic: it calibrates to the project's own conventions (read from CLAUDE.md and the manifest), so it applies equally to any stack.

Step 5: Synthesize findings

Collect all agent findings into a single severity-rated table:

| # | Severity | Category | File:Line | Finding | Recommendation |
|---|----------|----------|-----------|---------|----------------|

Severity levels:

• CRITICAL: Security vulnerability, data loss risk, auth bypass
• HIGH: Logic bug, missing error handling, N+1 query, soft-delete violation
• MEDIUM: Code quality, naming, DRY, missing types
• LOW: Style, minor improvements, suggestions

Step 6: GO/NO-GO verdict

• NO-GO: Any CRITICAL or HIGH finding present → must fix before merge/deploy
• GO with notes: Only MEDIUM/LOW findings → safe to proceed, address in follow-up
• GO: No findings → clean review