mcpField
P
parallel-code-review

parallel-code-review

github.com/revitalb-portTesting & quality055 installsUpdated 10w ago
Repository

About parallel-code-review

parallel-code-review is a skill for Cursor agents that coordinates four read-only reviewers across security, performance, correctness, and maintainability, then merges their findings into a prioritized review. It is intended for large, sensitive, or performance-critical changes.

Key features

  1. 01Four parallel read-only reviewers
  2. 02Security, performance, correctness, and readability checks
  3. 03Deduplicated, severity-ordered findings
  4. 04Optional targeted follow-up tasks

Use cases

  1. 01Reviewing a large diff or refactor
  2. 02Checking authentication or payment changes
  3. 03Inspecting performance-sensitive code

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/revitalb-port/skills-registry-demo --skill parallel-code-review

After installing, type/parallel-code-reviewin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

Parallel Code Review

Use Cursor’s Task tool to run four explore (read-only) subagents at once. Each subagent only reads code and produces findings for one dimension. The main agent merges results into a single prioritized review — something only a multi-agent setup does efficiently.

When to use

  • Large diffs or refactors where a single pass misses categories.
  • Security-sensitive changes (auth, payments, parsing untrusted input).
  • Performance-sensitive paths (hot loops, N+1 queries, bundle entry points).

Workflow

1. Scope the change set

Prefer a concrete list of files for reviewers:

git diff --name-only origin/main...HEAD

Or paste the PR link and let the main agent list changed files from the branch.

2. Launch four parallel subagents

Send one message with four Task invocations, each subagent_type: "explore" and readonly: true, with prompts like:

Security

Read-only review: SECURITY

Changed files:
<list>

Focus: injection (SQL, shell, XSS), authZ/authN gaps, secrets in code, unsafe deserialization, path traversal, SSRF, IDOR, dependency CVEs mentioned in diff.

Output:
- Critical / High / Medium / Low findings
- File:line and short fix recommendation
- "No issues" if nothing material

Performance

Read-only review: PERFORMANCE

Changed files:
<list>

Focus: N+1 queries, missing indexes, accidental O(n²) loops, bundle size impact, unnecessary re-renders, sync I/O on hot paths, unbounded caches.

Output: same severity + location format as above.

Correctness

Read-only review: CORRECTNESS

Changed files:
<list>

Focus: logic bugs, off-by-one, wrong edge cases, race conditions, error handling gaps, breaking API changes, test gaps for new behavior.

Output: same format.

Readability / maintainability

Read-only review: READABILITY

Changed files:
<list>

Focus: naming, duplication, abstraction boundaries, file size, unclear control flow, missing types/docs where they would prevent bugs.

Output: same format; prefer suggestions over nitpicks.
3. Synthesize

The main agent should:

  1. De-duplicate findings that appear in multiple dimensions (count once, worst severity).
  2. Order by severity, then by fix cost.
  3. Produce a short executive summary (5 bullets max) and a table or list of actionable items.
4. Optional — address findings

Fix in the main agent or spawn targeted non-readonly follow-up tasks only for approved items.

Notes

  • Keep prompts read-only so parallel runs never fight over writes.
  • If the diff is huge, split by directory and run four reviewers per directory in a second wave — do not cram unrelated megadiffs into one pass.
  • This complements human review; it does not replace compliance or security sign-off for regulated environments.

Comments

Markdown supported