code-review

Automated code review for pull requests using multiple specialized agents with confidence-based scoring

Author: Anthropic Category: productivity

Installation

/plugin marketplace add giginet/claude-plugins-official
/plugin install code-review@claude-plugins-official
claude plugin marketplace add giginet/claude-plugins-official
claude plugin install code-review@claude-plugins-official

Commands

NameDescription
code-review Code review a pull request
allowed-toolsBash(gh issue view:*), Bash(gh search:*), Bash(gh issue list:*), Bash(gh pr comment:*), Bash(gh pr diff:*), Bash(gh pr view:*), Bash(gh pr list:*)
disable-model-invocationFalse

Provide a code review for the given pull request.

To do this, follow these steps precisely:

  1. Use a Haiku agent to check if the pull request (a) is closed, (b) is a draft, (c) does not need a code review (eg. because it is an automated pull request, or is very simple and obviously ok), or (d) already has a code review from you from earlier. If so, do not proceed.
  2. Use another Haiku agent to give you a list of file paths to (but not the contents of) any relevant CLAUDE.md files from the codebase: the root CLAUDE.md file (if one exists), as well as any CLAUDE.md files in the directories whose files the pull request modified
  3. Use a Haiku agent to view the pull request, and ask the agent to return a summary of the change
  4. Then, launch 5 parallel Sonnet agents to independently code review the change. The agents should do the following, then return a list of issues and the reason each issue was flagged (eg. CLAUDE.md adherence, bug, historical git context, etc.): a. Agent #1: Audit the changes to make sure they compily with the CLAUDE.md. Note that CLAUDE.md is guidance for Claude as it writes code, so not all instructions will be applicable during code review. b. Agent #2: Read the file changes in the pull request, then do a shallow scan for obvious bugs. Avoid reading extra context beyond the changes, focusing just on the changes themselves. Focus on large bugs, and avoid small issues and nitpicks. Ignore likely false positives. c. Agent #3: Read the git blame and history of the code modified, to identify any bugs in light of that historical context d. Agent #4: Read previous pull requests that touched these files, and check for any comments on those pull requests that may also apply to the current pull request. e. Agent #5: Read code comments in the modified files, and make sure the changes in the pull request comply with any guidance in the comments.
  5. For each issue found in #4, launch a parallel Haiku agent that takes the PR, issue description, and list of CLAUDE.md files (from step 2), and returns a score to indicate the agent's level of confidence for whether the issue is real or false positive. To do that, the agent should score each issue on a scale from 0-100, indicating its level of confidence. For issues that were flagged due to CLAUDE.md instructions, the agent should double check that the CLAUDE.md actually calls out that issue specifically. The scale is (give this rubric to the agent verbatim): a. 0: Not confident at all. This is a false positive that doesn't stand up to light scrutiny, or is a pre-existing issue. b. 25: Somewhat confident. This might be a real issue, but may also be a false positive. The agent wasn't able to verify that it's a real issue. If the issue is stylistic, it is one that was not explicitly called out in the relevant CLAUDE.md. c. 50: Moderately confident. The agent was able to verify this is a real issue, but it might be a nitpick or not happen very often in practice. Relative to the rest of the PR, it's not very important. d. 75: Highly confident. The agent double checked the issue, and verified that it is very likely it is a real issue that will be hit in practice. The existing approach in the PR is insufficient. The issue is very important and will directly impact the code's functionality, or it is an issue that is directly mentioned in the relevant CLAUDE.md. e. 100: Absolutely certain. The agent double checked the issue, and confirmed that it is definitely a real issue, that will happen frequently in practice. The evidence directly confirms this.
  6. Filter out any issues with a score less than 80. If there are no issues that meet this criteria, do not proceed.
  7. Use a Haiku agent to repeat the eligibility check from #1, to make sure that the pull request is still eligible for code review.
  8. Finally, use the gh bash command to comment back on the pull request with the result. When writing your comment, keep in mind to: a. Keep your output brief b. Avoid emojis c. Link and cite relevant code, files, and URLs

Examples of false positives, for steps 4 and 5:

  • Pre-existing issues
  • Something that looks like a bug but is not actually a bug
  • Pedantic nitpicks that a senior engineer wouldn't call out
  • Issues that a linter, typechecker, or compiler would catch (eg. missing or incorrect imports, type errors, broken tests, formatting issues, pedantic style issues like newlines). No need to run these build steps yourself -- it is safe to assume that they will be run separately as part of CI.
  • General code quality issues (eg. lack of test coverage, general security issues, poor documentation), unless explicitly required in CLAUDE.md
  • Issues that are called out in CLAUDE.md, but explicitly silenced in the code (eg. due to a lint ignore comment)
  • Changes in functionality that are likely intentional or are directly related to the broader change
  • Real issues, but on lines that the user did not modify in their pull request

Notes:

  • Do not check build signal or attempt to build or typecheck the app. These will run separately, and are not relevant to your code review.
  • Use gh to interact with Github (eg. to fetch a pull request, or to create inline comments), rather than web fetch
  • Make a todo list first
  • You must cite and link each bug (eg. if referring to a CLAUDE.md, you must link it)
  • For your final comment, follow the following format precisely (assuming for this example that you found 3 issues):

Code review

Found 3 issues:

  1. (CLAUDE.md says "<...>")

  1. (some/other/CLAUDE.md says "<...>")

  1. (bug due to )

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

- If this code review was useful, please react with 👍. Otherwise, react with 👎.


  • Or, if you found no issues:

Code review

No issues found. Checked for bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

  • When linking to code, follow the following format precisely, otherwise the Markdown preview won't render correctly: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-cli-internal/blob/c21d3c10bc8e898b7ac1a2d745bdc9bc4e423afe/package.json#L10-L15
  • Requires full git sha
  • You must provide the full sha. Commands like https://github.com/owner/repo/blob/$(git rev-parse HEAD)/foo/bar will not work, since your comment will be directly rendered in Markdown.
  • Repo name must match the repo you're code reviewing
  • sign after the file name

  • Line range format is L[start]-L[end]
  • Provide at least 1 line of context before and after, centered on the line you are commenting about (eg. if you are commenting about lines 5-6, you should link to L4-7)

README

Code Review Plugin

Automated code review for pull requests using multiple specialized agents with confidence-based scoring to filter false positives.

Overview

The Code Review Plugin automates pull request review by launching multiple agents in parallel to independently audit changes from different perspectives. It uses confidence scoring to filter out false positives, ensuring only high-quality, actionable feedback is posted.

Commands

/code-review

Performs automated code review on a pull request using multiple specialized agents.

What it does: 1. Checks if review is needed (skips closed, draft, trivial, or already-reviewed PRs) 2. Gathers relevant CLAUDE.md guideline files from the repository 3. Summarizes the pull request changes 4. Launches 4 parallel agents to independently review: - Agents #1 & #2: Audit for CLAUDE.md compliance - Agent #3: Scan for obvious bugs in changes - Agent #4: Analyze git blame/history for context-based issues 5. Scores each issue 0-100 for confidence level 6. Filters out issues below 80 confidence threshold 7. Posts review comment with high-confidence issues only

Usage:

/code-review

Example workflow:

# On a PR branch, run:
/code-review

# Claude will:
# - Launch 4 review agents in parallel
# - Score each issue for confidence
# - Post comment with issues ≥80 confidence
# - Skip posting if no high-confidence issues found

Features: - Multiple independent agents for comprehensive review - Confidence-based scoring reduces false positives (threshold: 80) - CLAUDE.md compliance checking with explicit guideline verification - Bug detection focused on changes (not pre-existing issues) - Historical context analysis via git blame - Automatic skipping of closed, draft, or already-reviewed PRs - Links directly to code with full SHA and line ranges

Review comment format:

## Code review

Found 3 issues:

1. Missing error handling for OAuth callback (CLAUDE.md says "Always handle OAuth errors")

https://github.com/owner/repo/blob/abc123.../src/auth.ts#L67-L72

2. Memory leak: OAuth state not cleaned up (bug due to missing cleanup in finally block)

https://github.com/owner/repo/blob/abc123.../src/auth.ts#L88-L95

3. Inconsistent naming pattern (src/conventions/CLAUDE.md says "Use camelCase for functions")

https://github.com/owner/repo/blob/abc123.../src/utils.ts#L23-L28

Confidence scoring: - 0: Not confident, false positive - 25: Somewhat confident, might be real - 50: Moderately confident, real but minor - 75: Highly confident, real and important - 100: Absolutely certain, definitely real

False positives filtered: - Pre-existing issues not introduced in PR - Code that looks like a bug but isn't - Pedantic nitpicks - Issues linters will catch - General quality issues (unless in CLAUDE.md) - Issues with lint ignore comments

Installation

This plugin is included in the Claude Code repository. The command is automatically available when using Claude Code.

Best Practices

Using /code-review

  • Maintain clear CLAUDE.md files for better compliance checking
  • Trust the 80+ confidence threshold - false positives are filtered
  • Run on all non-trivial pull requests
  • Review agent findings as a starting point for human review
  • Update CLAUDE.md based on recurring review patterns

When to use

  • All pull requests with meaningful changes
  • PRs touching critical code paths
  • PRs from multiple contributors
  • PRs where guideline compliance matters

When not to use

  • Closed or draft PRs (automatically skipped anyway)
  • Trivial automated PRs (automatically skipped)
  • Urgent hotfixes requiring immediate merge
  • PRs already reviewed (automatically skipped)

Workflow Integration

Standard PR review workflow:

# Create PR with changes
/code-review

# Review the automated feedback
# Make any necessary fixes
# Merge when ready

As part of CI/CD:

# Trigger on PR creation or update
# Automatically posts review comments
# Skip if review already exists

Requirements

  • Git repository with GitHub integration
  • GitHub CLI (gh) installed and authenticated
  • CLAUDE.md files (optional but recommended for guideline checking)

Troubleshooting

Review takes too long

Issue: Agents are slow on large PRs

Solution: - Normal for large changes - agents run in parallel - 4 independent agents ensure thoroughness - Consider splitting large PRs into smaller ones

Too many false positives

Issue: Review flags issues that aren't real

Solution: - Default threshold is 80 (already filters most false positives) - Make CLAUDE.md more specific about what matters - Consider if the flagged issue is actually valid

No review comment posted

Issue: /code-review runs but no comment appears

Solution: Check if: - PR is closed (reviews skipped) - PR is draft (reviews skipped) - PR is trivial/automated (reviews skipped) - PR already has review (reviews skipped) - No issues scored ≥80 (no comment needed)

Issue: Code links don't render correctly in GitHub

Solution: Links must follow this exact format:

https://github.com/owner/repo/blob/[full-sha]/path/file.ext#L[start]-L[end]
  • Must use full SHA (not abbreviated)
  • Must use #L notation
  • Must include line range with at least 1 line of context

GitHub CLI not working

Issue: gh commands fail

Solution: - Install GitHub CLI: brew install gh (macOS) or see GitHub CLI installation - Authenticate: gh auth login - Verify repository has GitHub remote

Tips

  • Write specific CLAUDE.md files: Clear guidelines = better reviews
  • Include context in PRs: Helps agents understand intent
  • Use confidence scores: Issues ≥80 are usually correct
  • Iterate on guidelines: Update CLAUDE.md based on patterns
  • Review automatically: Set up as part of PR workflow
  • Trust the filtering: Threshold prevents noise

Configuration

Adjusting confidence threshold

The default threshold is 80. To adjust, modify the command file at commands/code-review.md:

Filter out any issues with a score less than 80.

Change 80 to your preferred threshold (0-100).

Customizing review focus

Edit commands/code-review.md to add or modify agent tasks: - Add security-focused agents - Add performance analysis agents - Add accessibility checking agents - Add documentation quality checks

Technical Details

Agent architecture

  • 2x CLAUDE.md compliance agents: Redundancy for guideline checks
  • 1x bug detector: Focused on obvious bugs in changes only
  • 1x history analyzer: Context from git blame and history
  • Nx confidence scorers: One per issue for independent scoring

Scoring system

  • Each issue independently scored 0-100
  • Scoring considers evidence strength and verification
  • Threshold (default 80) filters low-confidence issues
  • For CLAUDE.md issues: verifies guideline explicitly mentions it

GitHub integration

Uses gh CLI for: - Viewing PR details and diffs - Fetching repository data - Reading git blame and history - Posting review comments

Author

Boris Cherny (boris@anthropic.com)

Version

1.0.0

License

                                 Apache License
                           Version 2.0, January 2004
                        http://www.apache.org/licenses/

   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION

   1. Definitions.

      "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction,
      and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.

      "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by
      the copyright owner that is granting the License.

      "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all
      other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common
      control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition,
      "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
      direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or
      otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
      outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.

      "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity
      exercising permissions granted by this License.

      "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications,
      including but not limited to software source code, documentation
      source, and configuration files.

      "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical
      transformation or translation of a Source form, including but
      not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation,
      and conversions to other media types.

      "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
      Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
      copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
      (an example is provided in the Appendix below).

      "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
      form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
      editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
      represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes
      of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain
      separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of,
      the Work and Derivative Works thereof.

      "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
      the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
      to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
      submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
      or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
      the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
      means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
      to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
      communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
      and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
      Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
      excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
      designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."

      "Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity
      on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and
      subsequently incorporated within the Work.

   2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
      this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
      worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
      copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
      publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
      Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

   3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
      this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
      worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
      (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made,
      use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,
      where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
      by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
      Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
      with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You
      institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
      cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
      or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
      or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
      granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate
      as of the date such litigation is filed.

   4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
      Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
      modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
      meet the following conditions:

      (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or
          Derivative Works a copy of this License; and

      (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
          stating that You changed the files; and

      (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
          that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
          attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
          excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
          the Derivative Works; and

      (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
          distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
          include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
          within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
          pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
          of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
          as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
          documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
          within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
          wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
          of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
          do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
          notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
          or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
          that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
          as modifying the License.

      You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
      may provide additional or different license terms and conditions
      for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or
      for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use,
      reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with
      the conditions stated in this License.

   5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
      any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
      by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
      this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
      Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify
      the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed
      with Licensor regarding such Contributions.

   6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
      names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
      except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
      origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.

   7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or
      agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each
      Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS,
      WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
      implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions
      of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A
      PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the
      appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any
      risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.

   8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory,
      whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise,
      unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly
      negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be
      liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special,
      incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a
      result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the
      Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill,
      work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all
      other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor
      has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

   9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing
      the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer,
      and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity,
      or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this
      License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only
      on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf
      of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify,
      defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability
      incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason
      of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability.

   END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

   APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work.

      To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following
      boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]"
      replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include
      the brackets!)  The text should be enclosed in the appropriate
      comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a
      file or class name and description of purpose be included on the
      same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier
      identification within third-party archives.

   Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]

   Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
   you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
   You may obtain a copy of the License at

       http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

   Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
   distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
   WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
   See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
   limitations under the License.