> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://mintlify.com/derHaken/SuperAntigravity/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# /review

> Validate implementation against the plan with specialist agents

`/review` loads the code-reviewer agent to run a structured review of the implementation against the plan, requirements, and quality standards. It is the gate between `/implement` and `/git` — nothing ships without a review verdict.

## What gets reviewed

The review covers four areas. Each one is checked independently and reported separately.

### Plan compliance

* Does the implementation match what was planned?
* Are all acceptance criteria met?
* Is there any scope creep — things added that weren't planned?

### Code quality

* Is the code readable without needing comments to explain it?
* Are functions doing one thing?
* Is error handling present at system boundaries?
* Are there tests for the new behavior?

### Security

* Is there any user input that isn't validated?
* Are there any secrets or credentials in the code?
* Are there any new endpoints missing authorization?

### Performance

* Any N+1 queries — a loop containing a database call?
* Any synchronous blocking I/O in an async context?
* Any unbounded data fetching — missing `LIMIT` on queries?
* Any unnecessary re-computation inside loops?

## Issue severity

| Severity     | Meaning                                                          |
| ------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Critical** | Blocks shipping — security vulnerabilities, broken functionality |
| **High**     | Should fix before shipping — significant quality issues          |
| **Medium**   | Fix soon — technical debt, missing tests                         |
| **Low**      | Nice to have — style, minor improvements                         |

Only Critical and High issues block the gate. Medium and Low issues are surfaced as suggestions and can be addressed after shipping.

## Review output format

The code-reviewer agent produces a structured report:

```
=== CODE REVIEW ===
Task reviewed: [task N from plan]
Reviewer: code-reviewer agent

PLAN COMPLIANCE: PASS
- All acceptance criteria met
- No scope creep detected

CODE QUALITY: 2 issues
- MEDIUM: auth.js:45 — function is 87 lines, extract token validation to separate function
- LOW: Missing error message context in catch block at user.js:102

SECURITY: PASS (no auth/input handling changes)

PERFORMANCE: PASS

OVERALL: APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS
Blocker count: 0 | Suggestions: 2
```

## Verdicts and what they mean

<Tabs>
  <Tab title="APPROVED">
    No issues found. The implementation is ready to ship. The gate to `/git` is open.
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS">
    No blockers, but suggestions were noted. The gate to `/git` is open. Suggestions can be addressed before or after shipping.
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="CHANGES REQUIRED">
    One or more Critical or High issues were found. The gate to `/git` is closed. Issues must be resolved and a follow-up review run before proceeding.
  </Tab>
</Tabs>

## Agents involved

| Agent             | When invoked                                                                         |
| ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| code-reviewer     | Primary — runs the full review checklist                                             |
| security-engineer | Invoked when the changes include auth, input handling, credentials, or new endpoints |

The receiving-code-review skill is also loaded when applying feedback from a CHANGES REQUIRED verdict, to ensure feedback is incorporated correctly.

<Note>
  If the review returns CHANGES REQUIRED, SuperAntigravity loads the receiving-code-review skill to guide you through applying the feedback systematically. After fixes are applied, `/review` is run again before the gate opens.
</Note>