Claude Team Review

Adversarial code and plan review using Claude Code Agent Teams.

One teammate reviews. The lead fixes. Iterate until approved — with full context preserved between rounds.

What is this

A Claude Code skill that spawns an adversarial reviewer as an Agent Teams teammate. The reviewer reads your project, runs tests, checks documentation, and delivers findings with a skeptical stance. The lead (your main session) fixes issues, then asks the same reviewer to re-check — no context loss, no re-reading the entire project.

How it differs from adversarial-review

adversarial-review uses two different models (Claude writes, Codex reviews) — you get cross-model blind spot coverage and cheap re-review via codex exec resume. It requires Codex CLI and an OpenAI API key.

claude-team-review stays within the Claude ecosystem. No external dependencies. The reviewer is a Claude Code teammate with its own context window, MCP access, and the ability to run commands. Context persists natively — the teammate simply receives the next message. The trade-off: same model family means no cross-model diversity.

Use adversarial-review when you want maximum review quality through model diversity. Use claude-team-review when you want zero external dependencies and a richer reviewer (tests, docs, web search).

How it works

┌──────────┐     message      ┌────────────┐
│   Lead   │ ───────────────> │  Reviewer   │
│  (code)  │                  │ (teammate)  │
└──────────┘                  └────────────┘
     ^                              │
     │          findings            │
     │ <────────────────────────────┘
     │
     │  fix issues
     v
┌──────────┐     message      ┌────────────┐
│   Lead   │ ───────────────> │  Reviewer   │
│  (fixed) │  "re-check this" │ (same ctx)  │
└──────────┘                  └────────────┘
                                    │
                              VERDICT: APPROVED

The reviewer teammate keeps its context across rounds. It already knows the project structure, the original findings, and the discussion history. Re-review is cheap.

Three modes

Mode	What it reviews	When to use
plan	Implementation plan	Before writing code
code	Git diff (unstaged, staged, branch)	After writing code
code-vs-plan	Code changes against the plan	Verify implementation

Mode is auto-detected from context, or you can force it with an argument.

What the reviewer can do

• Read any file in the repository
• Run commands — tests, linters, type checkers, build scripts
• Search the web and query documentation via MCP (Context7)
• Inspect git history — blame, log, diff

The reviewer cannot create, edit, or delete project files.

Requirements

• Claude Code ≥ 2.1.32
• Agent Teams enabled (experimental)

No external dependencies. No API keys beyond your Claude subscription.

Installation

# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/dementev-dev/claude-team-review.git

# Symlink into Claude Code skills directory
ln -s "$(pwd)/claude-team-review" ~/.agents/skills/claude-team-review

Enable Agent Teams in your Claude Code settings:

{
  "env": {
    "CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS": "1"
  }
}

The skill also includes a subagent definition at .claude/agents/adversarial-reviewer.md. Copy it to your project's .claude/agents/ or to ~/.claude/agents/ for global availability:

cp claude-team-review/.claude/agents/adversarial-reviewer.md ~/.claude/agents/

Usage

# Auto-detect what to review
/claude-team-review

# Review a plan
/claude-team-review plan

# Review code changes
/claude-team-review code

# Review a specific file
/claude-team-review path/to/plan.md

# Use maximum reasoning effort for the reviewer
/claude-team-review xhigh

Reviewer behavior

The reviewer uses an adversarial stance — it defaults to skepticism and tries to break confidence in the change. Each finding must answer:

1. What can go wrong? — concrete scenario
2. Why vulnerable? — cite specific location
3. Impact — what breaks and how badly
4. Recommendation — specific fix

The reviewer verifies findings by running tests, checking documentation, and inspecting related code before reporting.

Roadmap

• Real-world testing and iteration on prompts
• Parallel multi-reviewer mode (security + performance + correctness)
• Persistent reviewer memory across sessions
• Integration with CI (GitHub Actions)
• Comparison benchmarks: Codex backend vs Team backend

Эксперимент: сравнение ревьюеров

Мы запустили оба ревьюера (Opus и GPT-5.4) на одном и том же плане и сравнили находки. Ключевой вывод: модели ревьюят из принципиально разных парадигм — Opus как архитектор ("сработает ли этот дизайн?"), Codex как security/ops инженер ("что сломается в продакшене?"). Ноль полных совпадений, ~30% частичных пересечений.

Подробности: EXPERIMENT.md — полный ход эксперимента, все находки, анализ пересечений, выводы.

Related

• adversarial-review — cross-model variant using Codex CLI as the reviewer backend
• Claude Code Agent Teams docs — official documentation on Agent Teams

License

Apache-2.0 — see LICENSE.