Claude-Code-Workflow/.claude/skills/team-perf-opt/role-specs/reviewer.md

prefix, inner_loop, additional_prefixes, discuss_rounds, subagents, message_types

prefix	inner_loop	additional_prefixes	discuss_rounds	subagents	message_types
REVIEW	false	QUALITY	DISCUSS-REVIEW	discuss	success error fix review_complete error 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	/artifacts/optimization-plan.md	Yes
Benchmark results	/artifacts/benchmark-results.json	No
shared-memory.json	/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