Files
agents/tools/multi-agent-review.md
Seth Hobson 3802bca865 Refine plugin marketplace for launch readiness
Plugin Scope Improvements:
- Remove language-specialists plugin (not task-focused)
- Split specialized-domains into 5 focused plugins:
  * blockchain-web3 - Smart contract development only
  * quantitative-trading - Financial modeling and trading only
  * payment-processing - Payment gateway integration only
  * game-development - Unity and Minecraft only
  * accessibility-compliance - WCAG auditing only
- Split business-operations into 3 focused plugins:
  * business-analytics - Metrics and reporting only
  * hr-legal-compliance - HR and legal docs only
  * customer-sales-automation - Support and sales workflows only
- Fix infrastructure-devops scope:
  * Remove database concerns (db-migrate, database-admin)
  * Remove observability concerns (observability-engineer)
  * Move slo-implement to incident-response
  * Focus purely on container orchestration (K8s, Docker, Terraform)
- Fix customer-sales-automation scope:
  * Remove content-marketer (unrelated to customer/sales workflows)

Marketplace Statistics:
- Total plugins: 27 (was 22)
- Tool coverage: 100% (42/42 tools referenced)
- Fat plugins removed: 3 (language-specialists, specialized-domains, business-operations)
- All plugins now have clear, focused tasks

Model Migration:
- Migrate all 42 tools from claude-sonnet-4-0/opus-4-1 to model: sonnet
- Migrate all 15 workflows from claude-opus-4-1 to model: sonnet
- Use short model syntax consistent with agent files

Documentation Updates:
- Update README.md with refined plugin structure
- Update plugin descriptions to be task-focused
- Remove anthropomorphic and marketing language
- Improve category organization (now 16 distinct categories)

Ready for October 9, 2025 @ 9am PST launch
2025-10-08 20:54:29 -04:00

2.3 KiB

model
model
sonnet

Perform comprehensive multi-agent code review with specialized reviewers:

[Extended thinking: This tool command invokes multiple review-focused agents to provide different perspectives on code quality, security, and architecture. Each agent reviews independently, then findings are consolidated.]

Review Process

1. Code Quality Review

Use Task tool with subagent_type="code-reviewer" to examine:

  • Code style and readability
  • Adherence to SOLID principles
  • Design patterns and anti-patterns
  • Code duplication and complexity
  • Documentation completeness
  • Test coverage and quality

Prompt: "Perform detailed code review of: $ARGUMENTS. Focus on maintainability, readability, and best practices. Provide specific line-by-line feedback where appropriate."

2. Security Review

Use Task tool with subagent_type="security-auditor" to check:

  • Authentication and authorization flaws
  • Input validation and sanitization
  • SQL injection and XSS vulnerabilities
  • Sensitive data exposure
  • Security misconfigurations
  • Dependency vulnerabilities

Prompt: "Conduct security review of: $ARGUMENTS. Identify vulnerabilities, security risks, and OWASP compliance issues. Provide severity ratings and remediation steps."

3. Architecture Review

Use Task tool with subagent_type="architect-reviewer" to evaluate:

  • Service boundaries and coupling
  • Scalability considerations
  • Design pattern appropriateness
  • Technology choices
  • API design quality
  • Data flow and dependencies

Prompt: "Review architecture and design of: $ARGUMENTS. Evaluate scalability, maintainability, and architectural patterns. Identify potential bottlenecks and design improvements."

Consolidated Review Output

After all agents complete their reviews, consolidate findings into:

  1. Critical Issues - Must fix before merge

    • Security vulnerabilities
    • Broken functionality
    • Major architectural flaws
  2. Important Issues - Should fix soon

    • Performance problems
    • Code quality issues
    • Missing tests
  3. Minor Issues - Nice to fix

    • Style inconsistencies
    • Documentation gaps
    • Refactoring opportunities
  4. Positive Findings - Good practices to highlight

    • Well-designed components
    • Good test coverage
    • Security best practices

Target for review: $ARGUMENTS