Skip to main content

Code Review Full Output Format

Subagent Findings JSON Schema​

Both subagents write findings in this format. The structured format enables deterministic merging without LLM re-parsing.

{
  "summary": "<executive summary text>",
  "verdict": "approve | approve_with_comments | request_changes",
  "severity_counts": { "critical": 0, "high": 0, "medium": 0, "low": 0 },
  "changed_files": [
    { "file": "<path>", "lines_changed": "<description>", "risk": "High|Medium|Low", "issue_count": 0 }
  ],
  "findings": [
    {
      "number": 1,
      "title": "<brief title>",
      "severity": "Critical|High|Medium|Low",
      "category": "<category name>",
      "skill": "<skill name or null>",
      "file": "<path>",
      "lines": "<line range, e.g. 45-52>",
      "problem": "<description>",
      "current_code": "<code snippet or null>",
      "suggested_fix": "<code snippet or null>"
    }
  ],
  "positive_changes": ["<observation>"],
  "testing_recommendations": ["<recommendation>"],
  "recommended_actions": ["<action>"],
  "out_of_scope_observations": [
    { "file": "<path>", "observation": "<text>" }
  ],
  "risk_assessment": "<risk level and explanation>",
  "acceptance_criteria_coverage": [
    { "ac": "<AC text>", "status": "Implemented|Partial|Not found", "notes": "<explanation>" }
  ]
}

Fields that do not apply may be omitted or set to null / empty array. The acceptance_criteria_coverage field is present only when the standards subagent received a story definition.

Report Skeleton​

Structure the merged report in this section order:

  1. Metadata header: reviewer name, branch, date, aggregate severity counts, and the standards subagent's Code/PR Summary as the report description. If the standards subagent was skipped, use the functional subagent's executive summary as the description.
  2. Changed Files Overview: unified table of all reviewed files with risk levels and issue counts.
  3. Merged Findings: all issues renumbered and tagged by source subagent, grouped by severity.
  4. Acceptance Criteria Coverage: the standards subagent's coverage table, included only when a story input was provided.
  5. Positive Changes: combined positive observations from both subagents.
  6. Testing Recommendations: combined testing guidance from both subagents.
  7. Recommended Actions: actions from the standards subagent's review. If the standards subagent was skipped, include any recommendations from the functional subagent; omit the section if both are absent.
  8. Out-of-scope Observations: combined observations from both subagents.
  9. Risk Assessment: the standards subagent's risk assessment for the overall change. If the standards subagent was skipped, derive risk level from the functional subagent's highest-severity finding.
  10. Verdict: the stricter of the two subagent verdicts with brief justification.

Omit sections sourced exclusively from a subagent that was skipped.

Persist and Present​

Do not present the report until both review.md and metadata.json have been successfully written to disk.

  1. Write the merged report and metadata to disk using the review-artifacts protocol with reviewer set to code-review-full.

  2. Confirm both files exist before proceeding.

  3. Present a compact summary in the conversation, not the full report. The summary contains:

    • Metadata table (reviewer, branch, date, severity counts)
    • Changed Files Overview table
    • One-line-per-finding table: | # | Title [Source] | Severity | File:Lines | where File:Lines is a single markdown link with a line range anchor (for example, [review-test-sample.py](review-test-sample.py#L134-L136)). For single-line findings use #L<N>; for ranges use #L<start>-L<end>.
    • Verdict with brief justification
    • Link to the full review.md on disk

    Do not reproduce problem descriptions, code snippets, or suggested fixes in the conversation response; those exist in review.md.

🤖 Crafted with precision by ✨Copilot following brilliant human instruction, then carefully refined by our team of discerning human reviewers.