Multi-perspective code review with parallel specialists.
Works with
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionreviewExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches review from parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate review. Access via /review in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
0
total installs
0
this week
3.7K
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
3.7K
stars
Multi-perspective code review with parallel specialists.
┌──────────┐
│ critic │ ─┐
│ (code) │ │
└──────────┘ │
│
┌──────────┐ │ ┌──────────────┐
│plan-reviewer│ ─┼────▶ │ review-agent │
│ (plan) │ │ │ (synthesis) │
└──────────┘ │ └──────────────┘
│
┌──────────┐ │
│plan-reviewer│ ─┘
│ (change) │
└──────────┘
Parallel Sequential
perspectives synthesis
| # | Agent | Focus | Execution |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | critic | Code quality, patterns, readability | Parallel |
| 1 | plan-reviewer | Architecture, plan adherence | Parallel |
| 1 | plan-reviewer | Change impact, risk assessment | Parallel |
| 2 | review-agent | Synthesize all reviews, final verdict | After 1 |
# Code quality review
Task(
subagent_type="critic",
prompt="""
Review code quality: [SCOPE]
Evaluate:
- Code style and consistency
- Design patterns used
- Readability and maintainability
- Error handling
- Test coverage
Output: List of issues with severity (critical/major/minor)
""",
run_in_background=true
)
# Architecture review
Task(
subagent_type="plan-reviewer",
prompt="""
Review architecture alignment: [SCOPE]
Check:
- Follows established patterns
- Matches implementation plan (if exists)
- Consistent with system design
- No architectural violations
Output: Alignment assessment with concerns
""",
run_in_background=true
)
# Change impact review
Task(
subagent_type="plan-reviewer",
prompt="""
Review change impact: [SCOPE]
Assess:
- Risk level of changes
- Affected systems/components
- Backward compatibility
- Potential regressions
- Security implications
Output: Risk assessment with recommendations
""",
run_in_background=true
)
# Wait for all parallel reviews
[Check TaskOutput for all three]
Task(
subagent_type="review-agent",
prompt="""
Synthesize reviews for: [SCOPE]
Reviews:
- critic: [code quality findings]
- plan-reviewer: [architecture findings]
- plan-reviewer: [change impact findings]
Create final review:
- Overall verdict (APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / NEEDS_DISCUSSION)
- Prioritized action items
- Blocking vs non-blocking issues
- Summary for PR description
"""
)
User: /review
→ All four agents, comprehensive review
User: /review --quick
→ critic only, fast feedback
User: /review --security
→ Add aegis (security agent) to parallel phase
User: /review PR #123
→ Fetch PR diff, review changes
User: /review the authentication changes
Claude: Starting /review workflow...
Phase 1: Running parallel reviews...
┌────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ critic: Reviewing code quality... │
│ plan-reviewer: Checking architecture... │
│ plan-reviewer: Assessing change impact... │
└────────────────────────────────────────────┘
critic: Found 2 issues
- [minor] Inconsistent error messages in auth.ts
- [major] Missing input validation in login()
plan-reviewer: ✅ Matches authentication plan
plan-reviewer: Medium risk
- Affects: login, signup, password reset
- Breaking change: session token format
Phase 2: Synthesizing...
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Review Summary │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES │
│ │
│ Blocking: │
│ 1. Add input validation to login() │
│ │
│ Non-blocking: │
│ 2. Standardize error messages │
│ │
│ Notes: │
│ - Document session token format change │
│ - Consider migration path for existing │
│ sessions │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
mattpocock/skills
cursor/plugins
ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills
ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills
pproenca/dot-skills
review fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
I recommend review for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
review reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
Keeps context tight: review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
Registry listing for review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
Registry listing for review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
Keeps context tight: review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
We added review from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
Useful defaults in review — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
showing 1-10 of 58