Review
Review gives your current branch's net changes an independent review against a local base: from the merge base to the current working-tree result, including relevant untracked files. On a clean tree this is the committed branch review — the commits your branch has advanced past the base. Invoke it when you want a fresh reviewer to inspect the result and return findings — without implementing, fixing, or publishing anything.
Review runs the same shared review contract that Work and Autonomous use, on a recorded comparison instead of a completed worker slice: no worker report, accepted-slice history, or implementation history is needed, and the reviewer inspects the comparison and verifies its evidence itself.
Try Review
Invoke the installed skill on a branch whose committed changes you want checked:
/review/review main check the migration commit for regressions/review --deep v1.4.0 audit the combined API changes/review --profile server-b main focus on the lock ordering/review only my uncommitted changes
Leading options — --deep, --profile NAME (or --profile=NAME), and the -- delimiter — may appear in any order, with everything after the options as the review context: a focus, acceptance criteria, or a named local base. A base is always named in that remaining text; there is no separate base flag. Add --deep for the expensive integration-level audit (the deep-review contract) instead of the ordinary review.
| Request form | Review behavior |
|---|---|
/review | The local default base, no extra criteria, ordinary review of the net changes to the working-tree result. |
/review <base or criteria> | Names a local base or supplies focus or criteria; ordinary review. |
/review only my uncommitted changes | Reviews the local changes relative to HEAD instead of the merge-base comparison. |
/review --deep ... | The same recorded comparison reviewed by the deep-review contract. |
/review --profile NAME ... | The review route is resolved through that named routing profile. |
A selected profile is session-scoped: a fresh /review without a selector uses ordinary routing. An unambiguous natural-language instruction (for example, "use the server-b routing profile") selects a profile; merely mentioning one does not. An unknown, conflicting, or missing profile selector is reported before dispatch. Named routing profiles are described in named routing profiles.
The examples use conceptual slash syntax; select the installed skill or use the client-specific invocation described in setup. Review starts only when explicitly invoked.
Scope and base
The default comparison is the merge base of your branch and the base to the current working-tree result, including relevant untracked files. A dirty tree does not stop the invocation, and it never narrows the review to uncommitted changes alone. An explicit scope in the review context — for example "only my uncommitted changes" — reviews the local changes relative to HEAD instead. Nothing is ever stashed, committed, or discarded, and the actual comparison and included changes are stated before the reviewer is dispatched.
The base is resolved from local Git metadata and repository conventions when you do not name one. An unavailable or ambiguous base is a question to you, not a remote fetch, and no branch is switched, checked out, merged, rebased, or reset. The comparison is recorded before the reviewer is dispatched; when it has no net changes there is nothing to review and no reviewer is dispatched.
The routing tiers
The review round uses the standard tier; --deep uses the deep tier. In the packaged defaults these are the review and deep-review routes, and routes remain configurable. See Choosing models by role.
What you receive
The reviewer's report: a verdict (clean or blocking findings), each finding with its location, impact, and required action, optional nits, and the commands the reviewer ran with results. The report identifies the reviewed branch, the base, and the recorded comparison, and discloses checks the reviewer could not run or criteria it could not verify; a clean verdict is not claimed when evidence is missing.
Findings are returned to you, not dispatched: Review does not run a fix round, a re-review, or a hosted review, and it makes no commits, pushes, or other changes. The report is the deliverable, not a gate into a fix loop: a /work in the same session uses the findings and scope directly when you want them addressed.
The review also never changes the checkout: nothing is stashed, committed, discarded, or reconciled. Before the results are reported, a final recheck records the current branch, HEAD, and the working-tree result; if the checkout or the working-tree result changed during the review, the report states that the verdict covers only the recorded comparison and what changed — the changed result is not claimed covered.
Implementation source
This guide explains the user-facing workflow. The authoritative instructions are the review skill source, the shared round contract, the review task contract, and the deep-review task contract. Installation remains in the setup guide; architecture and runtime support remain in the canonical architecture and runtime compatibility references.