---

name: code-review description: > Submit code review requests to multiple AI providers (GitHub Copilot, Anthropic Claude, OpenAI Codex, Google Gemini) and get patches back. Use when user says "code review", "review this code", "get a patch for", or needs AI-generated unified diffs for code fixes. allowed-tools: Bash, Read triggers:

• code review
• review this code
• get a patch
• copilot review
• generate diff
• review request
• full review metadata: short-description: Multi-provider AI code review CLI

---

Code Review Skill

Submit structured code review requests to multiple AI providers and get unified diffs back.

Supported Providers

Prerequisites

Copy# Check provider CLI availability
python .agents/skills/code-review/code_review.py check
python .agents/skills/code-review/code_review.py check --provider anthropic
python .agents/skills/code-review/code_review.py check --provider openai
python .agents/skills/code-review/code_review.py check --provider google

Quick Start

Copy# Single-step review (default: github/copilot)
python .agents/skills/code-review/code_review.py review --file request.md

# Use different provider
python .agents/skills/code-review/code_review.py review --file request.md --provider anthropic

# OpenAI with high reasoning
python .agents/skills/code-review/code_review.py review --file request.md --provider openai --reasoning high

# Include uncommitted local files via workspace
python .agents/skills/code-review/code_review.py review --file request.md --workspace ./src --workspace ./tests

# Full 3-step pipeline (generate -> judge -> finalize)
python .agents/skills/code-review/code_review.py review-full --file request.md

Commands

check

Verify provider CLI and authentication.

review

Submit a single code review request.

review-full

Run iterative code review pipeline.

Pipeline (per round):

1. Generate - Initial review with diff and clarifying questions
2. Judge - Reviews output, answers questions, provides feedback
3. Finalize - Regenerates diff incorporating feedback

Copy# Full pipeline with intermediate files saved
python .agents/skills/code-review/code_review.py review-full \
  --file request.md \
  --save-intermediate \
  --output-dir ./reviews
# Creates: round1_step1.md, round1_step2.md, round1_final.md, round1.patch

build

Build a request markdown file from options.

bundle

Bundle request for copy/paste into GitHub Copilot web.

IMPORTANT: Copilot web can only see committed & pushed changes!

models

List available models for a provider.

template

Print the example review request template.

find

Search for review request markdown files.

Workspace Feature

The --workspace flag copies local files to a temporary directory that providers can access. This is useful when you have uncommitted changes that aren't visible to remote-based providers.

Copy# Copy src/ and tests/ to temp workspace
python .agents/skills/code-review/code_review.py review \
  --file request.md \
  --workspace ./src \
  --workspace ./tests

The workspace is automatically cleaned up after the review completes.

Provider-Specific Notes

GitHub Copilot (github)

• Requires gh CLI authenticated
• Supports --continue for session continuity
• Models: gpt-5, claude-sonnet-4, claude-sonnet-4.5, claude-haiku-4.5

Anthropic Claude (anthropic)

• Requires claude CLI
• Supports --continue for session continuity
• Models: opus, sonnet, haiku, opus-4.5, sonnet-4.5, sonnet-4

OpenAI Codex (openai)

• Requires codex CLI
• Default reasoning: high (best results)
• Models: gpt-5, gpt-5.2, gpt-5.2-codex, o3, o3-mini
• Does NOT support --continue (session context lost between rounds)

Google Gemini (google)

• Requires gemini CLI
• Models: gemini-3-pro, gemini-3-flash, gemini-2.5-pro, gemini-2.5-flash, auto
• Does NOT support --continue (use /chat save/resume in interactive mode)

Project Agent Workflow (Recommended)

The intended workflow is for the project agent (Claude) to interpret and apply suggestions:

CopyUser asks for code review
        |
Project agent creates review request (follows template)
        |
review/review-full sends to provider CLI
        |
Project agent parses output, decides what to apply
        |
Project agent uses Edit tool to apply changes it concurs with
        |
If unclear, agent asks provider (another round) or the user

Why this approach:

• Patch format may be malformed (won't git apply)
• Project agent can exercise judgment on suggestions
• Agent can ask clarifying questions back to provider
• Same workflow humans use, but automated

Dependencies

Copypip install typer rich