agentleFS
witi-projectswiti-projects/Skills/parallel-code-review/SKILL.md

parallel-code-review

Skill2 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Run four parallel read-only subagents that each review the same diff from a different lens — security, performance, correctness, and readability — then merge findings into one report. Use before merging large or risky PRs. Use when the user says "/parallel-code-review", "parallel code review", or asks about parallel code review.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use Cursor’s Task tool to run four explore (read-only) subagents at once.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer a concrete list of files for reviewers:

    line 21
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep prompts read-only so parallel runs never fight over writes.

    line 102
  4. Distinctive:

    If the diff is huge, split by directory and run four reviewers per directory in a second wave — do not cram unrelated megadiffs into one …

    line 103

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Parallel Code Review

Use Cursor’s Task tool to run four explore (read-only) subagents at once. Each subagent only reads code and produces findings for one dimension. The main agent merges results into a single prioritized review — something only a multi-agent setup does efficiently.

When to use

  • Large diffs or refactors where a single pass misses categories.
  • Security-sensitive changes (auth, payments, parsing untrusted input).
  • Performance-sensitive paths (hot loops, N+1 queries, bundle entry points).

Workflow

1. Scope the change set

Prefer a concrete list of files for reviewers:

git diff --name-only origin/main...HEAD

Or paste the PR link and let the main agent list changed files from the branch.

2. Launch four parallel subagents

Send one message with four Task invocations, each subagent_type: "explore" and readonly: true, with prompts like:

Security

Read-only review: SECURITY

Changed files:
<list>

Focus: injection (SQL, shell, XSS), authZ/authN gaps, secrets in code, unsafe deserialization, path traversal, SSRF, IDOR, dependency CVEs mentioned in diff.

Output:
- Critical / High / Medium / Low findings
- File:line and short fix recommendation
- "No issues" if nothing material

Performance

Read-only review: PERFORMANCE

Changed files:
<list>

Focus: N+1 queries, missing indexes, accidental O(n²) loops, bundle size impact, unnecessary re-renders, sync I/O on hot paths, unbounded caches.

Output: same severity + location format as above.

Correctness

Read-only review: CORRECTNESS

Changed files:
<list>

Focus: logic bugs, off-by-one, wrong edge cases, race conditions, error handling gaps, breaking API changes, test gaps for new behavior.

Output: same format.

Readability / maintainability

Read-only review: READABILITY

Changed files:
<list>

Focus: naming, duplication, abstraction boundaries, file size, unclear control flow, missing types/docs where they would prevent bugs.

Output: same format; prefer suggestions over nitpicks.

3. Synthesize

The main agent should:

  1. De-duplicate findings that appear in multiple dimensions (count once, worst severity).
  2. Order by severity, then by fix cost.
  3. Produce a short executive summary (5 bullets max) and a table or list of actionable items.

4. Optional — address findings

Fix in the main agent or spawn targeted non-readonly follow-up tasks only for approved items.

Notes

  • Keep prompts read-only so parallel runs never fight over writes.
  • If the diff is huge, split by directory and run four reviewers per directory in a second wave — do not cram unrelated megadiffs into one pass.
  • This complements human review; it does not replace compliance or security sign-off for regulated environments.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

Reviews can't be read right now.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.