# Review all changes in current branch (from merge-base to HEAD)
/code-review

# Review a specific commit
/code-review abc1234

# Review a range of commits
/code-review --from abc1234 --to def5678

# Review changes since a specific commit
/code-review --from HEAD~5

# Review changes up to a specific commit
/code-review --to feature-branch

Execution Method

This command delegates to the code-review-expert agent (Haiku model) for fast, cost-effective execution.

Delegation: Use the Task tool with:

subagent_type: "git-workflow:code-review-expert"
model: "haiku"
prompt: Include the commit range and current working directory

Example:

Task(subagent_type="git-workflow:code-review-expert", model="haiku", prompt="Review changes from abc1234 to HEAD in /path/to/repo")

Execution Instructions for Claude Code

When this command is run, Claude Code should:

1. Parse Arguments

SINGLE_COMMIT = first positional argument (if provided)
FROM = --from value or merge-base with main/master
TO = --to value or HEAD

If a single commit is provided:

Review just that commit: FROM = <commit>^, TO = <commit>

If no arguments:

FROM = merge-base with main (or master)
TO = HEAD

2. Validate Commit References

# Verify commits exist
git rev-parse --verify "$FROM" 2>/dev/null
git rev-parse --verify "$TO" 2>/dev/null

If invalid, show error with suggestions.

3. Gather Change Information

# Get overview
git diff --stat $FROM..$TO

# Get commit history
git log --oneline $FROM..$TO

# Get full diff for analysis
git diff $FROM..$TO

4. Analyze Changes

Review each file's changes for:

Critical Issues (must fix)

Security vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, auth bypass)
Hardcoded secrets or credentials
Data exposure risks

High Priority (should fix)

Logic bugs and incorrect behavior
Missing error handling
Null reference issues
Race conditions

Medium Priority (consider fixing)

Performance issues (N+1 queries, inefficient loops)
Code smells and maintainability issues
Missing input validation

Low Priority (optional)

Style inconsistencies
Minor code improvements
Documentation gaps

Test Coverage

New code without corresponding tests
Changed behavior without updated tests

5. Present Findings

Format output as:

Code Review: <from>..<to>
=========================

Files Changed: N (+X, -Y)
Commits: M

## Critical Issues
- [SECURITY] path/file.py:42 - SQL injection via unsanitized input

## High Priority
- [LOGIC] path/file.py:78 - Missing null check on user.profile

## Medium Priority
- [PERFORMANCE] path/file.py:120 - Queries in loop, consider batch fetch

## Low Priority
- [STYLE] path/file.py:15 - Inconsistent naming: userID vs user_id

## Test Coverage
- Missing tests for: new_feature() in path/file.py

## Suggestions
- Consider adding retry logic for external API calls

---
Overall: NEEDS_CHANGES | APPROVED_WITH_COMMENTS | APPROVED

6. Overall Assessment

NEEDS_CHANGES: Critical or multiple high-priority issues found
APPROVED_WITH_COMMENTS: Only medium/low issues, suggestions provided
APPROVED: No significant issues found

What to Review

Category	Look For
Security	Injection, auth, secrets, data exposure
Logic	Bugs, error handling, edge cases
Performance	N+1 queries, inefficient algorithms
Style	Naming, consistency, complexity
Tests	Coverage, quality, edge cases

What NOT to Flag

Subjective style preferences (unless inconsistent)
Theoretical issues that can't happen in context
Over-engineering suggestions
Minor naming bikeshedding

Error Handling

No changes to review
  The commits $FROM and $TO are identical.

Invalid commit reference
  Could not find commit: abc1234
  Try: git log --oneline -20

Not a git repository
  Navigate to a git repository first.

Related Commands

Command	Purpose
`/commit`	Create commits with conventional format
`/rebase`	Rebase local changes on remote

Argument	Default	Description
`<commit>`	-	Single commit to review
`--from`	merge-base with main	Starting commit reference
`--to`	HEAD	Ending commit reference

code-review

code-review

Usage

Arguments

Examples