---

name: team-branch-review description: Comprehensive branch review using a parallel agent team with Codex validation. Use when reviewing all commits on a branch before creating a PR, especially for large or complex branches that benefit from multi-perspective review. Trigger on "review my branch", "check before I PR", "full code review", "pre-PR review", "team review", or "review before merge". argument-hint: "[optional extra instructions]"

Team Branch Review

Comprehensive code review of all commits on the current branch compared to main. Spawns a team of parallel Claude (Opus) reviewers - each specializing in a different review concern. Each reviewer independently validates their own findings using the Codex MCP, then the lead synthesizes the final report.

Context

• Working directory: !pwd
• Current branch: !git branch --show-current
• Base commit: !git merge-base HEAD origin/main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || echo "main"

Instructions

You are the team lead conducting a comprehensive multi-agent code review.

CRITICAL: You MUST use TeamCreate to create an agent team and the Task tool (with team_name parameter) to spawn Claude reviewer agents. Each reviewer is an independent Claude agent session, NOT a Codex MCP call. Do NOT substitute direct mcp__codex__codex calls for agent teammates. The Codex MCP is used only BY the reviewer agents internally to validate their own findings - you (the lead) do not call Codex directly.

This skill does NOT edit files. It produces a review report only.

You will:

1. Spawn a team of Claude (Opus) reviewer agents using TeamCreate and the Task tool
2. Each reviewer explores the code deeply and validates their findings with Codex MCP
3. You collect all validated findings and synthesize the final report

---

Phase 0: Precondition Check

Before doing anything else, verify you have the required tools:

1. Check for the Task tool (subagent spawner). This is the tool that launches new agent sessions with parameters like subagent_type, team_name, name, model, and prompt. Look at your available tools - if you do not have a tool called "Task" that spawns subagents, STOP IMMEDIATELY and tell the user:

   "This skill requires the Task tool (subagent spawner) which is not available in custom agent sessions (claude --agent). Run this skill from a plain claude session instead."

   Do NOT attempt workarounds (CLI commands, direct Codex calls, single-agent review). Just stop.

2. Check for the TeamCreate tool. If not available, stop and tell the user: "Agent teams are required for this skill. Enable them by setting CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1 in your Claude Code settings, then retry."

Do NOT proceed past this phase unless both tools are confirmed available.

---

Phase 1: Analyze Branch Scope

Substitute BASE_COMMIT from Context above, then run these git commands:

git diff --shortstat BASE_COMMIT..HEAD
git log --oneline BASE_COMMIT..HEAD
git diff --stat BASE_COMMIT..HEAD

Look up PR description (if one exists for this branch):

gh pr view --json title,body --jq '"## " + .title + "\n\n" + .body' 2>/dev/null

If a PR exists, save the output as pr_context. If the command fails (no PR exists), set pr_context to empty string.

Record:

• lines_changed: Total lines added + removed
• files_changed: List of all changed file paths
• commit_count: Number of commits
• base_commit: The exact commit hash (use this everywhere, not "main")
• pr_context: The PR title and body if a PR exists, otherwise empty
• team_name: Compute a unique team name: take the branch name, replace / with -, truncate to 30 chars, then prefix with review- and append - plus the first 6 chars of HEAD's commit hash. Example: branch feat/add-auth at commit a1b2c3d becomes review-feat-add-auth-a1b2c3. Use this value everywhere a team_name is needed.

Phase 2: Determine Team Composition

Based on lines_changed:

Small (< 200 lines) - 2 reviewers:

Name	Focus
reviewer-security	Security, correctness, logic errors, edge cases, input validation
reviewer-pragmatism	Architecture, code quality, unnecessary complexity, premature abstraction, YAGNI, over-engineering, locality of behavior

Medium (200-1000 lines) - 4 reviewers:

Name	Focus
reviewer-security	Vulnerabilities, injection, auth gaps, input validation, data exposure
reviewer-correctness	Logic errors, off-by-one, nil dereferences, concurrency, edge cases
reviewer-architecture	Design patterns, abstraction, coupling, API design, modularity
reviewer-simplicity	Over-engineering, premature abstraction, YAGNI, unnecessary complexity, locality of behavior, Chesterton's Fence

Large (1000+ lines) - 6 reviewers:

Name	Focus
reviewer-security	Vulnerabilities, injection, auth gaps, input validation, data exposure
reviewer-correctness	Logic errors, off-by-one, nil dereferences, race conditions
reviewer-architecture	Design patterns, coupling, API design, modularity
reviewer-simplicity	Over-engineering, premature abstraction, YAGNI, unnecessary complexity, locality of behavior, Chesterton's Fence
reviewer-performance	Allocations, N+1 queries, resource leaks, algorithmic complexity
reviewer-testing	Coverage gaps, testability, missing test cases, test quality

Phase 3: Spawn Team and Reviewer Agents

1. Create the team:

   TeamCreate(team_name: "TEAM_NAME", description: "Branch review of BRANCH_NAME")
   

2. Create temp directory for reviewer findings:

   mkdir -p /tmp/review-TEAM_NAME
   

3. Load templates and reviewer briefs. Before spawning, read the following files using the Read tool:

   Prompt templates (from ~/.claude/skills/team-branch-review/templates/):

   • templates/reviewer-prompt.md - The prompt template for reviewer agents (used in step 4 below)
   • templates/final-report.md - The report format for Phase 5 synthesis (read now, use later)

   Reviewer briefs (from ~/.claude/skills/shared/reviewers/):

   Reviewer name	Brief file
   reviewer-security	~/.claude/skills/shared/reviewers/security.md
   reviewer-correctness	~/.claude/skills/shared/reviewers/correctness.md
   reviewer-architecture	~/.claude/skills/shared/reviewers/architecture.md
   reviewer-simplicity	~/.claude/skills/shared/reviewers/simplicity.md
   reviewer-pragmatism	~/.claude/skills/shared/reviewers/pragmatism.md
   reviewer-performance	~/.claude/skills/shared/reviewers/performance.md
   reviewer-testing	~/.claude/skills/shared/reviewers/testing.md

   Read ALL relevant brief files and both template files.

4. Spawn ALL reviewers in parallel (send all Task calls in a single message):

   For each reviewer, take the loaded reviewer prompt template and substitute all placeholders, then pass the result as the Task prompt:

   Task(
     subagent_type: "general-purpose",
     team_name: "TEAM_NAME",
     name: "reviewer-security",
     model: "opus",
     description: "Security review",
     prompt: "[reviewer-prompt.md with all placeholders substituted]"
   )
   

   Repeat for each reviewer. All spawns happen simultaneously.

Reviewer Prompt Template

Each reviewer receives the prompt from ~/.claude/skills/team-branch-review/templates/reviewer-prompt.md (loaded in Phase 3, step 3).

Substitute these placeholders before passing to each reviewer:

Placeholder	Value
FOCUS_AREA	The reviewer's specialization name
FOCUS_DESCRIPTION	One-line description of their focus
FOCUS_BRIEF	Full content from the reviewer's brief file
BRANCH_NAME	Current branch name
BASE_COMMIT	Exact commit hash from Phase 1
FILE_LIST	All changed file paths, one per line
CWD	Working directory
TEAM_NAME	The team name computed in Phase 1 (used for findings file path)
REVIEWER_NAME	The reviewer's name, e.g. reviewer-security (used for findings file path)
PR_CONTEXT	The PR title and body from pr_context if available, otherwise the literal string "No PR description available."
TEAM_ROSTER	List of all OTHER reviewers (omit current). Format each as: - reviewer-name: Focus description

Phase 4: Wait for All Reviewers to Complete

Poll for findings files at /tmp/review-TEAM_NAME/{reviewer-name}.md. When all expected files exist, proceed to Phase 5. If a file has not appeared after extended waiting, note the gap and proceed with available findings.

Once all files are present, read each one and compile all findings into a single list tagged by reviewer.

Phase 5: Synthesize Final Report

You (the lead) produce the final report directly using the findings read from /tmp/review-TEAM_NAME/ files in Phase 4. Deduplicate findings caught by multiple reviewers (note cross-references). Resolve conflicts by favoring the position with stronger code evidence.

Use the report format from ~/.claude/skills/team-branch-review/templates/final-report.md (loaded in Phase 3, step 3). Substitute BRANCH_NAME and fill in all sections with the compiled findings.

Phase 6: Cleanup

1. TeamDelete() - clean up the agent team
2. rm -rf /tmp/review-TEAM_NAME - remove temp findings directory

---

Error Handling

Scenario	Recovery
Reviewer agent fails or times out	Note the gap in the report, continue with remaining findings
Codex MCP unavailable for a reviewer	Reviewer reports unvalidated findings, noted in report
Team spawn fails	Fall back to single-agent review (run codex-branch-review instead)
No findings from any reviewer	Report "APPROVED - no issues found" with note about review coverage

Guidelines

• All Claude agents use Opus: Set model: "opus" for every spawned agent
• Parallel execution: Spawn ALL reviewer agents simultaneously in one message
• Fixed base commit: Use the exact hash from Phase 1 everywhere, never "main"
• Distributed Codex validation: Each reviewer calls Codex MCP to validate their own findings (runs in parallel)
• Don't embed diffs in prompts: Let agents and Codex gather diffs via git commands themselves
• Deep exploration: Reviewers should use Read, Grep, Glob extensively - not just skim diffs
• No severity inflation: Findings should use honest, appropriate severity levels
• Phase 4 is a hard gate: Do NOT write the report until all reviewer findings files exist. This is non-negotiable.
• Findings come from files: Reviewers write findings to /tmp/review-TEAM_NAME/. Do not use message content as findings.

Next Steps

After presenting the report, if the outcome is NEEDS REVISION or MANUAL REVIEW REQUIRED, add this note:

Next steps:

• /team-branch-fix - Implement fixes for these findings. Choose which to fix, then agents implement changes in parallel.
• /team-branch-comment - Post findings as PR review comments on specific lines. Choose which findings to comment on, then comments are posted via GitHub API.

$ARGUMENTS