Skillintermediate

/review-local-changes - Local Changes Review

Review uncommitted local changes using all specialized agents with code improvement suggestions.

Claude Code Knowledge Pack7/10/2026

Overview

/review-local-changes - Local Changes Review

Review uncommitted local changes using all specialized agents with code improvement suggestions.

Purpose - Comprehensive review before committing
Output - Structured report with findings by severity

/review-local-changes [review-aspects] [--min-impact critical|high|medium|medium-low|low] [--json]

Arguments

Argument	Format	Default	Description
`review-aspects`	Free text	None	Optional review aspects or focus areas (e.g., "security, performance")
`--min-impact`	`--min-impact <level>`	`high`	Minimum impact level for reported issues. Values: `critical`, `high`, `medium`, `medium-low`, `low`
`--json`	Flag	`false`	Output results in JSON format instead of markdown

Impact Level Mapping

Level	Impact Score Range
`critical`	81-100
`high`	61-80
`medium`	41-60
`medium-low`	21-40
`low`	0-20

How It Works

Change Detection: Identifies all uncommitted changes in the working directory
- Staged changes
- Unstaged modifications
- New files
Parallel Agent Analysis: Spawns six specialized agents simultaneously
- Bug Hunter - Identifies potential bugs and edge cases
- Security Auditor - Finds security vulnerabilities
- Test Coverage Reviewer - Evaluates test coverage
- Code Quality Reviewer - Assesses code structure
- Contracts Reviewer - Reviews API contracts
- Historical Context Reviewer - Analyzes codebase patterns
Finding Aggregation: Combines all agent reports
- Categorizes by severity (Critical, High, Medium, Medium-Low, Low)
- Scores each issue for confidence (is it real?) and impact (how severe?)
- Removes duplicates
- Adds file and line references
Filtering: Applies two sequential filters to reduce noise
- Min-impact cutoff - Excludes issues below the --min-impact threshold (default: high, score 61+)
- Progressive confidence threshold - Higher-impact issues require less confidence to pass (Critical: 50%, High: 65%, Medium: 75%, Medium-Low: 85%, Low: 95%)
Report Generation: Produces actionable report in markdown (default) or JSON (--json) format with prioritized findings

Usage Examples

# Review all local changes (default: --min-impact high, markdown output)
> /review-local-changes

# Focus on security aspects
> /review-local-changes security

# Lower the threshold to catch medium-impact issues
> /review-local-changes --min-impact medium

# Focus on security and performance, medium threshold
> /review-local-changes security, performance --min-impact medium

# Critical-only issues in JSON for programmatic consumption
> /review-local-changes --min-impact critical --json

# After implementing a feature
> claude "implement user authentication"
> /review-local-changes

JSON Output

When using --json, the output is a structured object with these top-level fields:

quality_gate - "PASS" or "FAIL" (fails when any critical or high issue exists)
summary - Issue counts by severity
issues - Array of issues with severity, file, lines, description, evidence, impact_score, confidence_score, and optional suggestion
improvements - Array of code improvement suggestions from the code-quality-reviewer agent

Best Practices

Review before committing - Run review on local changes before git commit
Address critical issues first - Fix Critical and High priority findings immediately
Iterate after fixes - Run again to verify issues are resolved
Combine with reflexion - Use /reflexion:memorize to save patterns for future reference