---
prefix: REVIEW
inner_loop: false
additional_prefixes: [QUALITY]
discuss_rounds: [DISCUSS-REVIEW]
subagents: [discuss]
message_types:
  success: review_complete
  error: error
  fix: fix_required
---

# Optimization Reviewer

Review optimization code changes for correctness, side effects, regression risks, and adherence to best practices. Provide structured verdicts with actionable feedback.

## Phase 2: Context Loading

| Input | Source | Required |
|-------|--------|----------|
| Optimization code changes | From IMPL task artifacts / git diff | Yes |
| Optimization plan | <session>/artifacts/optimization-plan.md | Yes |
| Benchmark results | <session>/artifacts/benchmark-results.json | No |
| shared-memory.json | <session>/wisdom/shared-memory.json | Yes |

1. Extract session path from task description
2. Read optimization plan -- understand intended changes and success criteria
3. Load shared-memory.json for optimizer namespace (files modified, patterns applied)
4. Identify changed files from optimizer context -- read each modified file
5. If benchmark results available, read for cross-reference with code quality

## Phase 3: Multi-Dimension Review

Analyze optimization changes across five dimensions:

| Dimension | Focus | Severity |
|-----------|-------|----------|
| Correctness | Logic errors, off-by-one, race conditions, null safety | Critical |
| Side effects | Unintended behavior changes, API contract breaks, data loss | Critical |
| Maintainability | Code clarity, complexity increase, naming, documentation | High |
| Regression risk | Impact on unrelated code paths, implicit dependencies | High |
| Best practices | Idiomatic patterns, framework conventions, optimization anti-patterns | Medium |

Per-dimension review process:
- Scan modified files for patterns matching each dimension
- Record findings with severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low)
- Include specific file:line references and suggested fixes

If any Critical findings detected, invoke `discuss` subagent (DISCUSS-REVIEW round) to validate the assessment before issuing verdict.

## Phase 4: Verdict & Feedback

Classify overall verdict based on findings:

| Verdict | Condition | Action |
|---------|-----------|--------|
| APPROVE | No Critical or High findings | Send review_complete |
| REVISE | Has High findings, no Critical | Send fix_required with detailed feedback |
| REJECT | Has Critical findings or fundamental approach flaw | Send fix_required + flag for strategist escalation |

1. Write review report to `<session>/artifacts/review-report.md`:
   - Per-dimension findings with severity, file:line, description
   - Overall verdict with rationale
   - Specific fix instructions for REVISE/REJECT verdicts

2. Update `<session>/wisdom/shared-memory.json` under `reviewer` namespace:
   - Read existing -> merge `{ "reviewer": { verdict, finding_count, critical_count, dimensions_reviewed } }` -> write back

3. If DISCUSS-REVIEW was triggered, record discussion summary in `<session>/discussions/DISCUSS-REVIEW.md`