Deep review

Deep Review: Multi-Agent Quality Improvement Framework

Execute this skill to get constructive feedback and improvement suggestions through balanced expert analysis.

Execution Instructions

When invoked, you will:

0. Resolve scope and context — invoke context skill (always), then preflight if confidence is low
1. Populate review scope from working_scope
2. Spawn reviewer agents in parallel for comprehensive feedback
3. Aggregate suggestions from all reviewers with proper weighting
4. Generate improvement report with actionable recommendations
5. Save report to .outputs/review/

Note: This is a review for improvement, not pass/fail verification.

---

Dependency Check

Before executing any step, verify all required skills are present:

[skills-root]/context/SKILL.md
[skills-root]/preflight/SKILL.md
[skills-root]/domain-registry/README.md

Where [skills-root] is the parent of this skill's directory. Resolve with ls ../ from this skill's location.

If any required file is missing → stop immediately and output:

⚠ Missing required skills for deep-review:

  {missing-skill}
    Expected: {skills-root}/{missing-skill}/SKILL.md

Install the missing skill(s):
  git clone https://github.com/mikeng-io/agent-skills /tmp/agent-skills
  cp -r /tmp/agent-skills/skills/{missing-skill} {skills-root}/

Or install the full suite at once:
  cp -r /tmp/agent-skills/skills/ {skills-root}/

All dependencies present → proceed to Step 0.

---

Step 0: Scope & Context Resolution

Context (always required):

Invoke Skill("context") first. It classifies the artifact, detects domains from domain-registry, and determines routing confidence:

context_report:
  artifact_type: ""  # code | financial | marketing | creative | research | mixed
  domains: []        # matched domain names from domain-registry
  routing: ""        # parallel-workflow | debate-protocol | deep-council
  confidence: ""     # high | medium | low

Preflight (conditional — triggered by context confidence):

Invoke Skill("preflight") only if context_report.confidence == "low" OR one or more signals remain unresolved:

• Artifact is not clearly identified
• Intent is ambiguous (what aspect to improve?)
• Domains could not be detected
• Scope is too broad

Preflight fills exactly the gaps context could not resolve (max 3 questions, one at a time):

scope_clarification:
  artifact: ""       # what to review
  intent: "review"
  domains: []        # supplements context_report.domains
  constraints: []    # explicit areas to focus on (e.g., "performance", "security")
  confidence: ""     # high | medium

If context_report.confidence == "high" → skip preflight entirely.

Merge into working scope:

working_scope:
  artifact: ""            # files, topics, or description of what to review
  domains: []             # from context_report (authoritative), supplemented by preflight
  concerns: []            # from context signals and scope_clarification.constraints
  context_summary: ""     # combined description for reviewer agent prompts

Use working_scope throughout this skill.

---

Step 1: Populate Review Scope

Using working_scope from Step 0, populate the review context:

review_context:
  files: []              # from working_scope.artifact
  artifacts: []          # additional artifacts from working_scope
  topics: []             # key topics from context_report
  concerns: []           # from working_scope.concerns
  intent: ""             # from working_scope — what user wants to improve
  domain_inference: []   # from working_scope.domains

---

Step 2: Spawn Reviewer Agents in Parallel

Spawn reviewer sub-agents in parallel using the Task tool.

Reviewer Distribution

reviewer_selection:
  always_spawn:
    - Best Practices Expert (weight varies by domain)
    - Alternative Approaches Expert

  domain_driven_spawn:
    - Read domain-registry to select domain experts matching conversation signals
    - Each selected domain adds one domain expert reviewer
    - Replace Code Quality Reviewer with domain-appropriate quality reviewer
      (e.g., financial → Financial Accuracy Reviewer, design → Visual Quality Reviewer)

  fallback_if_no_domain_match:
    - Code Quality Reviewer (30% weight)
    - Performance Optimizer (15% weight)

execution:
  mode: parallel
  max_concurrent: 4
  capability: high

Agent Templates

Best Practices Expert

Weight: 35%
Purpose: Suggest industry best practices and standards
Capability: high

You are a BEST PRACTICES EXPERT. Your role is to suggest improvements based on industry standards and best practices.

## Your Mindset
"This works, but here's how to make it follow best practices and be more maintainable."

## Focus Areas
- Industry standards and conventions
- Framework/language-specific best practices
- Design principles (SOLID, DRY, KISS, etc.)
- Security best practices
- Accessibility standards (if applicable)
- Testing best practices

## Context to Review
{conversation_context}

## Your Scope
{scope_description}

## Output Format (JSON)
{
  "agent": "best-practices",
  "suggestions": [
    {
      "category": "Security | Architecture | Testing | Documentation | etc.",
      "severity": "CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW",
      "current_approach": "What's being done now",
      "best_practice": "What the industry standard is",
      "suggestion": "Specific improvement to make",
      "rationale": "Why this is better",
      "example": "Code example or reference (if applicable)",
      "resources": ["Links to documentation, standards, guides"]
    }
  ],
  "overall_assessment": "General feedback on alignment with best practices"
}

Code Quality Reviewer

Weight: 30%
Purpose: Improve code quality, readability, and maintainability
Capability: high

You are a CODE QUALITY REVIEWER. Your role is to suggest improvements for readability, maintainability, and code health.

## Your Mindset
"This code works, but here's how to make it clearer, more maintainable, and easier to work with."

## Focus Areas
- Code readability and clarity
- Naming conventions
- Function/method size and complexity
- Code organization and structure
- Documentation and comments
- Error handling patterns
- Code duplication (DRY violations)
- Magic numbers/strings

## Context to Review
{conversation_context}

## Output Format (JSON)
{
  "agent": "code-quality",
  "suggestions": [
    {
      "category": "Readability | Maintainability | Organization | Documentation",
      "severity": "CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW",
      "location": "File path and line number (if applicable)",
      "issue": "What could be improved",
      "suggestion": "Specific improvement",
      "before": "Current code pattern (if applicable)",
      "after": "Improved code pattern (if applicable)",
      "impact": "How this improves code quality"
    }
  ],
  "code_health_score": "Assessment of overall code health",
  "positive_aspects": ["What's already good"]
}

Alternative Approaches Expert

Weight: 20%
Purpose: Suggest different approaches and trade-offs
Capability: high

You are an ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES EXPERT. Your role is to present different ways to solve the same problem with trade-off analysis.

## Your Mindset
"The current approach works, but here are alternative solutions with their pros and cons."

## Focus Areas
- Different design patterns
- Alternative architectures
- Different technology choices
- Simpler solutions
- More scalable approaches
- Different frameworks/libraries
- Trade-offs between approaches

## Context to Review
{conversation_context}

## Output Format (JSON)
{
  "agent": "alternative-approaches",
  "alternatives": [
    {
      "name": "Name of alternative approach",
      "description": "What this approach involves",
      "pros": ["Advantages of this approach"],
      "cons": ["Disadvantages of this approach"],
      "when_to_use": "Scenarios where this is better",
      "complexity": "HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW",
      "example": "Code example or reference (if applicable)"
    }
  ],
  "current_approach_assessment": {
    "strengths": ["What's good about current approach"],
    "weaknesses": ["What could be better"],
    "verdict": "When current approach is appropriate"
  }
}

Performance Optimizer

Weight: 15%
Purpose: Identify performance optimization opportunities
Capability: high

You are a PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZER. Your role is to identify opportunities for performance improvements.

## Your Mindset
"This works, but here's how to make it faster, more efficient, or more scalable."

## Focus Areas
- Algorithm complexity (Big O)
- Database query optimization
- Caching opportunities
- Lazy loading vs eager loading
- Resource utilization (memory, CPU, network)
- Bottlenecks and hot paths
- Scalability considerations
- Frontend performance (if applicable)

## Context to Review
{conversation_context}

## Output Format (JSON)
{
  "agent": "performance",
  "optimizations": [
    {
      "category": "Algorithm | Database | Caching | Resource | Scalability",
      "severity": "CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW",
      "current_complexity": "O(n^2), 500ms response time, etc.",
      "opportunity": "What can be optimized",
      "suggestion": "Specific optimization",
      "expected_improvement": "How much faster/better",
      "trade_offs": ["What you give up for this optimization"],
      "effort": "HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW"
    }
  ],
  "performance_assessment": "Overall performance analysis",
  "premature_optimization_warning": "Areas where optimization might not be worth it"
}

---

Step 3: Aggregate Suggestions

After all reviewer agents complete, aggregate their suggestions:

Categorize by Priority

high_priority:
  - Suggestions marked as HIGH priority
  - Security concerns from best practices
  - Critical code quality issues

medium_priority:
  - Suggestions marked as MEDIUM priority
  - Maintainability improvements
  - Alternative approaches to consider

low_priority:
  - Nice-to-have improvements
  - Minor optimizations
  - Style preferences

Identify Common Themes

Look for suggestions mentioned by multiple reviewers:

• If 2+ reviewers mention same issue → Highlight as important
• If reviewers conflict → Present both viewpoints
• If reviewers agree → Emphasize consensus

Build Summary Table

Aspect	Assessment	Key Suggestions
Best Practices	Strong/Moderate/Weak	Top 3 suggestions
Code Quality	Score/10	Top 3 improvements
Architecture	Appropriate/Consider Alternatives	Alternative approaches
Performance	Good/Needs Optimization	Top optimizations

---

Step 4: Generate Review Report

Generate a markdown report with this structure:

# Deep Review Report

**Review Type:** Quality Improvement
**Reviewed At:** {timestamp}
**Scope:** {what_was_reviewed}
**Reviewers:** 4 expert agents

---

## Executive Summary

{2-3 paragraphs summarizing key findings and recommendations}

**Overall Assessment:** {High quality / Good with room for improvement / Needs work}

**Top 3 Recommendations:**
1. {Most important suggestion}
2. {Second most important}
3. {Third most important}

---

## Review Summary

| Aspect | Assessment | Priority Suggestions |
|--------|------------|---------------------|
| Best Practices | {assessment} | {count} suggestions |
| Code Quality | {score}/10 | {count} improvements |
| Alternatives | {count} options | {count} trade-offs |
| Performance | {assessment} | {count} optimizations |

---

## High Priority Suggestions

### {Category}: {Suggestion Title}

**Priority:** HIGH
**Suggested by:** {Agent name(s)}

**Current Approach:**
{What's being done now}

**Suggestion:**
{Specific improvement to make}

**Rationale:**
{Why this is important}

**Example:**
```{language}
// Before
{current_code_pattern}

// After
{improved_code_pattern}

Impact: {Expected benefit}

{Repeat for each high-priority suggestion}

---

Medium Priority Suggestions

{Same format as high priority, grouped by category}

---

Alternative Approaches

Alternative 1: {Approach Name}

Description: {What this involves}

Pros:

• {Advantage 1}
• {Advantage 2}

Cons:

• {Disadvantage 1}
• {Disadvantage 2}

When to Use: {Scenarios where this is better}

Complexity: {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW}

{Repeat for each alternative}

---

Performance Optimization Opportunities

{Optimization Title}

Category: {Algorithm/Database/Caching/etc.} Priority: {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW} Effort: {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW}

Current Performance: {Metrics or complexity}

Optimization: {Specific suggestion}

Expected Improvement: {How much better}

Trade-offs:

• {What you give up}

{Repeat for each optimization}

---

Positive Aspects

What's Already Good:

• {Positive aspect 1}
• {Positive aspect 2}
• {Positive aspect 3}

Strengths to Maintain:

• {Strength 1}
• {Strength 2}

---

Resources & References

Best Practices:

• {Link to standard/guide}
• {Link to documentation}

Alternative Approaches:

• {Link to pattern description}
• {Link to comparison}

Performance:

• {Link to optimization guide}
• {Link to benchmarking tool}

---

Next Steps

Recommended Action Plan:

1. Immediate (High Priority):

   • {Action item 1}
   • {Action item 2}

2. Short Term (Medium Priority):

   • {Action item 3}
   • {Action item 4}

3. Long Term (Low Priority):

   • {Action item 5}
   • {Action item 6}

Estimated Impact:

• Code Quality: {improvement estimate}
• Maintainability: {improvement estimate}
• Performance: {improvement estimate}

---

## Step 5: Save Report

## Artifact Output

Save to `.outputs/review/{YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS}-review-{slug}.md` with YAML frontmatter:

```yaml
---
skill: deep-review
timestamp: {ISO-8601}
artifact_type: review
domains: [{domain1}, {domain2}]
quality_assessment: "High quality | Good with room for improvement | Needs work"
context_summary: "{brief description of what was reviewed}"
session_id: "{unique id}"
---

Also save JSON companion: {timestamp}-review-{slug}.json

No symlinks. To find the latest artifact:

ls -t .outputs/review/ | head -1

QMD Integration (optional, progressive enhancement):

qmd collection add .outputs/review/ --name "deep-review-artifacts" --mask "**/*.md" 2>/dev/null || true
qmd update 2>/dev/null || true

Output Structure:

.outputs/review/
├── 20260130-143000-review-report.md
└── 20260130-143000-review-report.json

---

Configuration (Optional)

# .outputs/review/config.yaml

review:
  # Reviewer weights
  weights:
    best_practices: 0.35
    code_quality: 0.30
    alternatives: 0.20
    performance: 0.15

  # Priority thresholds
  high_priority_threshold: 0.8
  medium_priority_threshold: 0.5

  # Output options
  include_code_examples: true
  include_resources: true
  max_suggestions_per_category: 10

Environment Variables:

export DEEP_REVIEW_OUTPUT_DIR=".outputs/review/"
export DEEP_REVIEW_INCLUDE_EXAMPLES="true"

---

Notes

• Constructive Focus: This is about improvement, not criticism
• No Verdict: No pass/fail - only suggestions
• Actionable: All suggestions include specific actions
• Balanced: Includes positive aspects, not just problems
• Conversation-Driven: Extracts context from what was discussed
• Domain-Agnostic: Works for any domain (code, design, content, etc.)
• Parallel Execution: All reviewers run simultaneously for speed
• Deep Council: For cross-runtime/cross-council review confidence, see deep-council
• Domain-Aware: Reviewer distribution adapts to detected domains via domain-registry
• Context Routing: If the artifact is complex or multi-domain, invoke the context skill first to classify artifact type and determine optimal routing (parallel-workflow vs debate-protocol vs deep-council)
• DeepWiki (optional): For code artifacts, invoke Skill("deepwiki") before spawning reviewers if the codebase has a Devin-indexed wiki — provides architectural context that improves domain expert quality. Non-blocking; skip if unavailable.