Best Code Review Subagents

Use this agent when reviewing code changes in a pull request to identify silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing a logical chunk of work that involves error handling, catch blocks, fallback logic, or a

Use this agent when the user asks to "create an agent", "generate an agent", "build a new agent", "make me an agent that...", or describes agent functionality they need. Trigger when user wants to create autonomous agents for plugins. Examples: <example> Context: User wants to create a code review a

Use this agent when code has been written or modified and needs to be simplified for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. This agent should be triggered automatically after completing a coding task or writing a logical chunk of code. It simplifies code by fol

Use this agent when you need to review code for adherence to project guidelines, style guides, and best practices. This agent should be used proactively after writing or modifying code, especially before committing changes or creating pull requests. It will check for style violations, potential issu

Use this agent when the user has created or modified a skill and needs quality review, asks to "review my skill", "check skill quality", "improve skill description", or wants to ensure skill follows best practices. Trigger proactively after skill creation. Examples: <example> Context: User just crea

Reviews Atomic Agents Python code for framework-specific correctness — BaseIOSchema invariants, AtomicAgent/AgentConfig wiring, BaseTool generics, context-provider I/O hygiene, orchestration hazards, Instructor integration — using confidence-based filtering. Use PROACTIVELY after any change to atomi

AI-powered multi-agent code review. Simulates a customizable team of Engineers performing code review with built-in discourse.

Peer Reviewer 1; assesses methodological soundness, research design validity, and statistical rigor

Peer Reviewer 3; evaluates cross-disciplinary relevance, broader impact, and alternative interpretations

Simulates peer review to identify weaknesses and suggest improvements before submission

Reviews infrastructure-as-code changes for correctness, security, and best practices. Use proactively after IaC code changes to catch issues before deployment.

Use this agent when you need expert guidance on Output SDK implementation patterns, code quality, and best practices. Invoke when writing or reviewing workflow code, troubleshooting implementation issues, or ensuring code follows SDK conventions.

Business-impact gate. Adjusts severity based on asset criticality, engagement regulatory overlay, and compensating controls. Does NOT veto findings.

Editorial gate. Final pass on phrasing, framework-citation-version accuracy, cross-finding consistency. Flags (never blocks) findings that need author attention.

Use this agent after aidp-migrate-job completes to review a migrated .ipynb for correctness (NOT just "did it run"). Catches latent issues the cell-execute loop missed — wrong write-mode, lost rows, dropped columns, hardcoded paths, dead Databricks-isms. Outputs a structured review report.

Run provided validation scripts, analyze their output, and report results for DataHub connector verification steps. Handles extraction verification, capability checks, code quality gates, source connectivity, ingestion runs, and CLI verification. <example> Context: Workflow needs to verify that extr

Reviews code changes against SonarQube quality, security, and dependency-risk standards by composing this plugin's sonar-* skills. Use proactively before merging a PR or when the user asks for a SonarQube-based code review, a second opinion on code quality, or to "review my changes with SonarQube.

Conducts deep AWS Well-Architected Framework reviews of workloads. Use when performing a formal Well-Architected review, auditing architecture against the six pillars, identifying high-risk issues in an AWS environment, or creating improvement plans. Runs assessment commands to gather evidence.

Use this agent inside a source repository when the user wants a read-only dependency risk review based on local manifests. It inspects dependency files, resolves exact package coordinates when possible, checks those coordinates with Endor MCP tools, and reports risky dependencies, unresolved version

Synthesizes all reviewer reports into a unified editorial decision letter and revision roadmap

Convex code reviewer — security, auth, validators, performance, and pattern checks for code in a convex/ directory. Use to review or audit Convex functions before shipping.

Challenges core arguments and logical coherence as the devils advocate reviewer in the editorial panel

Peer Reviewer 2; assesses domain expertise, substantive accuracy, and field-specific adequacy

Parses reviewer comments and builds the structured revision plan for the author

Identifies the papers field and dynamically configures the reviewer teams identities and expertise