Code Review — Multi-Agent PR Review

Provide a thorough, multi-perspective code review for pull requests using parallel agents with confidence-based filtering.

The goal is to find real, impactful bugs while avoiding false positives and nitpicks. A senior engineer wouldn't waste time on trivial issues — neither should this review.

Process

Follow these steps precisely:

1. Eligibility Check (Haiku agent)

Check if the pull request: (a) is closed, (b) is a draft, (c) does not need review (automated PR, trivially simple), or (d) already has a code review from you. If any condition is true, stop.

2. Discover CLAUDE.md Files (Haiku agent)

Get file paths (not contents) of relevant CLAUDE.md files: the root CLAUDE.md and any CLAUDE.md files in directories whose files the PR modified.

3. Summarize the Change (Haiku agent)

View the pull request and return a summary of the change.

4. Parallel Review (5 Sonnet agents)

Launch 5 parallel agents. Each returns a list of issues with the reason each was flagged:

5. Confidence Scoring (parallel Haiku agents)

For each issue found, launch a Haiku agent that scores confidence 0-100:

For CLAUDE.md issues, the agent must double-check that the CLAUDE.md actually calls out that issue specifically.

6. Filter

Discard issues scoring below 80. If no issues remain, proceed to step 8 with "no issues found."

7. Re-check Eligibility (Haiku agent)

Repeat the eligibility check from step 1 to make sure the PR is still eligible.

8. Post Comment

Use gh pr comment to post the review. Keep it brief, no emojis, cite and link relevant code/files/URLs.

Format (with issues):

### Code review

Found N issues:

1. <brief description> (CLAUDE.md says "<...>")

<link to file and line with full SHA + line range>

2. <brief description> (bug due to <file and code snippet>)

<link to file and line with full SHA + line range>

Format (no issues):

### Code review

No issues found. Checked for bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance.

Link format: https://github.com/owner/repo/blob//path/to/file.ts#L10-L15

• Must use full git SHA (not HEAD or short hash)
• Include 1 line of context before and after the issue
• Line range: L[start]-L[end]

False Positives to Ignore

These are NOT real issues:

• Pre-existing issues (not introduced by this PR)
• Something that looks like a bug but isn't
• Pedantic nitpicks a senior engineer wouldn't mention
• Issues a linter, typechecker, or compiler would catch (imports, types, formatting)
• General code quality issues (coverage, docs) unless required by CLAUDE.md
• CLAUDE.md violations explicitly silenced in code (lint ignore comments)
• Intentional functionality changes related to the broader change
• Real issues on lines the user did not modify

Notes

• Do NOT check build signal, build, or typecheck. Those run separately in CI.
• Use gh for all GitHub interactions (not web fetch)
• Make a todo list first to track progress
• Cite and link every bug (if from CLAUDE.md, link the specific file)
• Consult references/review-patterns.md for advanced review patterns including blast-radius analysis, structured output templates, and test coverage gap detection.