Harness Review

Quick Reference

User Input	Subcommand	Behavior
"Review this" / "review"	code (auto)	Code review (recent changes)
"After harness-plan"	plan (auto)	Plan review
"Check scope"	scope (auto)	Scope analysis
harness-review code	code	Force code review
harness-review plan	plan	Force plan review
harness-review scope	scope	Force scope analysis
harness-review --dual	code (auto) + Codex parallel	Claude + Codex dual review
harness-review --security	Security Review	OWASP Top 10 dedicated security review (read-only)
harness-review --ui-rubric	UI Rubric Review	4-axis design quality scoring

Operating Modes

Maps flags to their reference files. Quick Reference above covers trigger → subcommand routing; this table covers flag → reference dispatch.

Flag	Reference	Purpose
--quick	${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/codex-closeout.md	Lightweight Codex-assisted closeout; stops on clean result
--codex-closeout	${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/codex-closeout.md	Full closeout with final JSON report
--team-debate	${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/team-debate.md	Multi-agent read-only debate (Spec / Plans / Regression / Skeptic agents)
--opencode	${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/opencode-review.md	OpenCode-assisted review via opencode-plugin-cc
(any mode)	${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/governance.md	APPROVE pass criteria, severity table, AskUserQuestion contract
(any mode)	${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/code-review.md	Eight-lens review flow and verdict rules

--team-debate is required when changes span multiple modules, touch security/auth/release, or when the same issue fails two consecutive post-fix re-reviews (see governance.md).

Options

Option	Default	Description
--dual	none	Parallel Claude + Codex review. Details: ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/dual-review.md
--security	none	OWASP Top 10 security-only review (read-only). Details: ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/security-profile.md
--ui-rubric	none	4-axis design quality scoring (0–10). Details: ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/ui-rubric.md
--no-commit	none	Disable auto-commit on APPROVE

Review Type Auto-Detection

Recent Activity	Review Type	Perspectives
After harness-work	Code Review	Security, Performance, Quality, Accessibility, AI Residuals
After harness-plan	Plan Review	Clarity, Feasibility, Dependencies, Acceptance
After task addition	Scope Review	Scope-creep, Priority, Feasibility, Impact

Verdict Framework

Establish severity classification before reviewing. See ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/verdict-framework.md for the full severity matrix and AI Residuals classification.

Rule: If critical or major findings exist → REQUEST_CHANGES. If only minor/recommendation → APPROVE.

Code Review Flow

Step 0: Reviewer Mode Auto-Detection (Browser vs Static)

Fork context auto-start (REVIEW_AUTOSTART): emit this as the very first output token in a forked session before any other processing.

Fork-context prohibition list (5 forbidden failure modes):

1. Waiting for user confirmation before starting
2. Returning empty output when the diff is empty (output {"verdict":"APPROVE","rationale":"no changes detected"})
3. Spawning a browser reviewer without checking reviewer_profile in the sprint contract
4. Writing to Plans.md or any cc:* marker
5. Exiting without emitting a JSON verdict

Does the change include UI files (.tsx, .jsx, .vue, .css, .html)?
├─ No  → Static reviewer (proceed to Step 1)
└─ Yes → Does the sprint-contract specify reviewer_profile: "browser"?
    ├─ Yes → Browser reviewer (launch browser-review-runner.sh)
    └─ No  → Is this a visual/design change?
        ├─ Yes → Browser reviewer recommended
        └─ No  → Static reviewer

Browser reviewer path: bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../scripts/browser-review-runner.sh" --contract "${CONTRACT_PATH}"

Step 1: Collect Change Diff

CHANGED_FILES="$(git diff --name-only --diff-filter=ACMR "${BASE_REF:-HEAD~1}")"
git diff ${BASE_REF:-HEAD~1} --stat
git diff ${BASE_REF:-HEAD~1} -- ${CHANGED_FILES}

Step 2: Static Scan for AI Residuals

AI_RESIDUALS_JSON="$(bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../scripts/review-ai-residuals.sh" --base-ref "${BASE_REF:-HEAD~1}")"

Step 3: Review from 5 Perspectives

Perspective	Check Items
Security	SQL injection, XSS, credential exposure, input validation
Performance	N+1 queries, unnecessary re-renders, memory leaks
Quality	Naming, single responsibility, test coverage, error handling
Accessibility	ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, color contrast
AI Residuals	mockData, dummy, fake, localhost, TODO, FIXME, it.skip, hardcoded secrets

Apply the severity framework from verdict-framework.md to each finding.

Step 4: Output Review Result

See ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/result-schema.md for the full review-result.v1 JSON schema.

For --dual flag: see ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/dual-review.md For --security flag: see ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/security-profile.md For --ui-rubric flag: see ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/ui-rubric.md

Step 5: Commit Decision

• APPROVE: Execute auto-commit (unless --no-commit)
• REQUEST_CHANGES: Present critical/major findings. Auto-fix via harness-work fix loop (up to 3 times), then re-review.

Plan Review Flow

See ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/plan-review.md

Scope Review Flow

See ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/scope-review.md

Anomaly Detection

Situation	Action
Security vulnerability	Immediately REQUEST_CHANGES
Suspected test tampering	Warning + fix request
Force push attempt	Reject + suggest alternative

Codex Environment

Load ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/codex-review.md only when command -v codex succeeds and the user explicitly requests Codex or duo review.

OpenCode Environment

Load ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/opencode-review.md only when command -v opencode succeeds and the user explicitly requests OpenCode review (e.g., --opencode, "use opencode", "opencode review").

↑ Claude will summarize this result. Type a new prompt to redirect or press Enter to continue.

Related Skills

• harness-work — Implement fixes after review
• harness-plan — Create and modify plans
• harness-release — Release after review passes