---
name: review
description: Review workflow for correctness and security
topology: concurrent
---

## explore
role: explorer

Identify changed or relevant areas for review: {goal}

## code-review
role: reviewer
dependsOn: explore
parallelGroup: review

Review correctness, maintainability, tests, and regressions.

## security-review
role: security-reviewer
dependsOn: explore
parallelGroup: review

Review security risks and trust boundaries.

## verify
role: verifier
dependsOn: code-review, security-review
verify: true

Run FAST checks ONCE and cache output WITH provenance to `.crew/cache/` (per `agents/verifier.md`: unique per-attempt filename, `set -o pipefail` so the recorded exit code is the command's — not `tee`'s — and a sibling `.meta` recording command, git revision, tree fingerprint): `npm run test:critical && npx tsc --noEmit` (completes in <60s; if this repo lacks these scripts, use its fastest documented check instead). Do NOT run `npm run test:unit` or `npm test` — too slow (642 files, >4 min). Cross-reference cached output with reviewer and security-reviewer findings — reuse a cached log only when its provenance matches. Confirm each finding against real test output. Start your report with the verdict line — `PASS: <what verified> — <evidence>` or `FAIL: <what failed> — <reason>` (exact single-line format; the leader's green-contract consumer reads this line — a report with no verdict line is treated as UNVERIFIED). Then give details.