Review

review

Multi-model code review plugin for Claude Code. Dispatches Claude and Codex reviewers in parallel, then a judge agent cross-validates and deduplicates findings.

Install

/plugin install review@joemiller-plugins

Usage

/review                          # uncommitted changes
/review --staged                 # staged changes only
/review HEAD~3..HEAD             # git range
/review src/parser.ts            # specific files
/review https://github.com/org/repo/pull/123   # GitHub PR

Use --agents N to run N reviewers per model (default asks interactively):

/review --agents 3               # 3 Claude + 3 Codex reviewers
/review --agents 1 https://github.com/org/repo/pull/42

How it works

1. Resolves scope to a diff (local changes or PR)
2. Generates N shuffled copies of the diff (randomized file order per reviewer to broaden coverage)
3. Launches N Claude + N Codex reviewers in parallel, each performing an adversarial review
4. A judge agent validates findings against the actual code, deduplicates, and produces a merged report
5. In PR mode, optionally posts findings as inline PR comments

Each reviewer focuses on material issues: trust boundaries, resource leaks, race conditions, input validation, error handling, and state corruption. Style and naming nits are explicitly excluded.

Requirements

• git, jq, shuf (coreutils)
• gh — PR mode only
• codex CLI — optional; falls back to Claude-only when unavailable

Architecture

• Skill (review) — pure orchestrator. Dispatches agents and formats output, never reviews code itself.
• Agents (reviewer, judge) — return structured FINDING: blocks. The skill handles all formatting.

Attribution

Prompts and architecture derived from @kelp's cross-review plugin.

Differences from upstream

• Single unified skill — handles both local changes and GitHub PRs, with --agents N for multi-agent reviews
• Judge agent replaces cross-validation — upstream runs each model as a validator of the other's findings (bidirectional); this plugin uses a dedicated judge that validates all findings in one pass
• No reconciliation step — upstream has --reconcile for disputed findings to return to the originator for rebuttal