Perform a comprehensive code review workflow on the current branch changes.

Arguments

•
$ARGUMENTS: Base branch to compare against (default: master)
- •Example: /code-review main or /code-review develop

Workflow Steps

Step 1: Gather Business Context

•
Read context file (if exists):
- •Check for .claude/context.md in the project root
- •This file contains business logic, specs, and system design prepared by the developer
- •Use this context to verify implementation alignment
•
Scan CLAUDE.md for relevant docs:
- •Read the project's CLAUDE.md (documentation TOC)
- •Based on the changed files/features, identify relevant docs mentioned
- •Read those docs to understand related requirements and design decisions
•
Check for testing philosophy (if test files changed):
- •Look for docs/rails_testing_philosophy.md in the project root
- •If found, read it and use as additional criteria for reviewing test changes
- •Apply these project-specific testing standards alongside general test review
•
Keep this context in mind for subsequent review steps to verify:
- •Implementation aligns with business requirements
- •Edge cases from specs are handled
- •Design decisions are followed
- •Test changes follow project's testing philosophy (if available)

Step 1.5: Read Reviewer Feedback (if exists)

•Check for .claude/reviewer-feedback.md
•
If exists:
- •Parse all reviewer items (they have structured format from /process-reviewer-feedback)
- •Store items for merging in Step 3
- •Reviewer items take priority for overlapping concerns
•
If not exists:
- •Continue with AI-only review (no reviewer feedback to merge)

Step 2: Get the Diff

•Determine base branch: Use $ARGUMENTS if provided, otherwise master
•Run git diff <base-branch>...HEAD to get all changes on this branch
•If empty, try git diff HEAD~1 for the latest commit

•If still no diff found, STOP and report error:

code

Error: No changes found to review.
- No diff between current branch and <base-branch>
- No changes in the latest commit
Please ensure you have uncommitted or committed changes to review.

Step 3: Code Review & Merge

Apply the review criteria defined in ~/.claude/skills/code-review-criteria.md.

Merging with reviewer feedback (if .claude/reviewer-feedback.md exists):

•Start with all reviewer items (preserve exactly, mark as 👤 Reviewer)
•Perform AI review and add AI items (mark as 🤖 AI)
•
For overlapping concerns (same file/area, similar issue):
- •Keep reviewer's version as primary
- •Add AI's additional context if valuable
- •Mark as 🤖 AI + 👤 Reviewer
•Number items sequentially within each priority section

Write the review directly to .claude/code-review.md using this structure:

markdown

# Code Review Summary

**Branch:** <current-branch>
**Base:** <base-branch>
**Files Changed:** <count>
**Lines:** +<additions> / -<deletions>

## Taste Rating

🟢/🟡/🔴 **<Rating>** - <One line explanation>

## Decision Options

- **Accept**: Will fix this issue
- **Drop**: Issue is incorrect or not applicable (explain why)
- **Won't Fix**: Valid issue but intentionally not addressing (explain why)

## Approach Options

- **Suggested fix**: Use the recommended fix as-is
- **Alternative**: Your different approach (describe in Notes)

---

## Findings

### 🔴 Blocking (Must Fix)

#### 1. `<file_path:line>` - <brief title>
- **Source:** 🤖 AI / 👤 Reviewer / 🤖 AI + 👤 Reviewer
- **Issue:** <description of the problem>
- **Suggestion:** <recommended fix>
- **Status:** [ ] Pending
- **Decision:** _Accept / Drop / Won't Fix_
- **Approach:** _Suggested fix / Alternative_
- **Notes:** _[Your response, alternative approach details, or discussion points]_

---

### 🟡 Important (Should Fix)

#### 1. `<file_path:line>` - <brief title>
- **Source:** 🤖 AI / 👤 Reviewer / 🤖 AI + 👤 Reviewer
- **Issue:** <description>
- **Suggestion:** <recommended fix>
- **Status:** [ ] Pending
- **Decision:** _Accept / Drop / Won't Fix_
- **Approach:** _Suggested fix / Alternative_
- **Notes:** _[Your response, alternative approach details, or discussion points]_

---

### 🟢 Nit (Nice to Have)

#### 1. `<file_path:line>` - <brief title>
- **Source:** 🤖 AI / 👤 Reviewer / 🤖 AI + 👤 Reviewer
- **Issue:** <description>
- **Suggestion:** <recommended fix>
- **Status:** [ ] Pending
- **Decision:** _Accept / Drop / Won't Fix_
- **Approach:** _Suggested fix / Alternative_
- **Notes:** _[Your response, alternative approach details, or discussion points]_

---

### 💡 Suggestions

#### 1. `<file_path:line>` - <brief title>
- **Source:** 🤖 AI / 👤 Reviewer / 🤖 AI + 👤 Reviewer
- **Issue:** <description>
- **Suggestion:** <recommended fix>
- **Status:** [ ] Pending
- **Decision:** _Accept / Drop / Won't Fix_
- **Approach:** _Suggested fix / Alternative_
- **Notes:** _[Your response, alternative approach details, or discussion points]_

---

## 🔗 Issue Relationships

<!-- Added by Step 3.5 - see that step for format -->

---

## Verdict

✅/❌ **<Verdict>** - <Summary explanation>

## Key Insight

<One sentence summary of the most important observation>

Step 3.5: Dependency & Conflict Analysis

After generating findings, analyze relationships between issues:

•Same-location issues: Items targeting the same file/method
•Cascading fixes: Fixing one issue may resolve another
•Conflicting solutions: Fixes that contradict or interfere with each other
•Merge candidates: Issues that should be addressed together

Add this section to .claude/code-review.md before Verdict:

markdown

---

## 🔗 Issue Relationships

### Cascading Fixes
<!-- Issues where fixing one resolves another -->
- **#X resolves #Y**: <explanation>

### Conflicts
<!-- Fixes that may interfere with each other -->
- **#X vs #Y**: <describe conflict and recommended resolution>

### Same-Location Changes
<!-- Issues modifying the same code area - coordinate fixes -->
- **#X, #Y, #Z** (`file:lines`): <coordination notes>

### Recommended Fix Order
<!-- Optimal sequence considering dependencies -->
1. #X - <reason>
2. #Y - <reason>

If no relationships found, add:

markdown

## 🔗 Issue Relationships

No dependencies or conflicts detected between findings.

Step 4: Commit Review

•
Stage the review file:
code
```
git add .claude/code-review.md
```
•
Commit with message:
code
```
Add code review for <current-branch>
```

Output Files

•.claude/code-review.md - Code review with actionable findings