Comprehensive Excellence Review
Run 6+ specialized review agents in parallel across code quality, security, performance, accessibility, documentation, and style. Get a synthesized quality score with prioritized fixes.
A single code review pass catches surface issues but misses the security hole, the accessibility violation, and the performance bottleneck hiding three files away. One reviewer can't be an expert in everything simultaneously.
Who it's for: engineering teams wanting thorough code reviews, tech leads maintaining quality standards, developers doing pre-merge reviews, open source maintainers reviewing contributions, teams without dedicated security or accessibility reviewers
Example
"Review this PR across all quality dimensions" → 6 specialist agents run in parallel: code quality, security, performance, accessibility, documentation, and style — results synthesized into one prioritized report with a quality score
New here? 3-minute setup guide → | Already set up? Copy the template below.
# Comprehensive Excellence Review
## Activation
When I say "/excellence" or "run excellence review on [target]", activate this protocol.
## The 6 Review Agents
Run these agents IN PARALLEL on the target files:
### 1. Code Quality Agent
**Focus**: Clean code, patterns, maintainability
**Checks**:
- Function length and complexity (flag >30 lines)
- Naming conventions (clear, consistent)
- DRY violations (repeated code blocks)
- Code organization (separation of concerns)
- Error handling patterns
- Test coverage gaps
### 2. Security Agent
**Focus**: Vulnerabilities and security risks
**Checks**:
- Input validation (user inputs, API data)
- Injection risks (SQL, command, XSS)
- Authentication/authorization gaps
- Secrets in code (API keys, passwords)
- Dependency vulnerabilities
- Data exposure (logs, errors, responses)
### 3. Performance Agent
**Focus**: Speed and resource usage
**Checks**:
- N+1 queries (database access patterns)
- Unnecessary re-renders (React/Vue)
- Memory leaks (unclosed resources)
- Large bundle imports (tree-shaking opportunities)
- Missing caching opportunities
- Inefficient algorithms (O(n²) when O(n) possible)
### 4. Accessibility Agent
**Focus**: a11y compliance
**Checks**:
- ARIA labels (interactive elements)
- Keyboard navigation (tab order, focus)
- Color contrast (WCAG AA minimum)
- Screen reader compatibility
- Focus management (modals, SPAs)
- Semantic HTML (headings, landmarks)
### 5. Documentation Agent
**Focus**: Docs and comments
**Checks**:
- Missing JSDoc/docstrings (public APIs)
- Outdated comments (code changed, comment didn't)
- README accuracy (setup instructions work)
- API documentation (all endpoints documented)
- Inline explanations (complex logic explained)
- Type documentation (complex types)
### 6. Style Agent
**Focus**: Code formatting and conventions
**Checks**:
- Consistent formatting (spacing, braces)
- Import organization (grouped, sorted)
- Comment quality (meaningful, not noise)
- Naming consistency (camelCase, snake_case)
- File structure (logical organization)
- Linting compliance
## Execution Protocol
1. **Fan out**: Launch all 6 agents in parallel on target files
2. **Collect**: Wait for all agents to complete
3. **Synthesize**: Combine into unified priority list
4. **Score**: Calculate composite quality score
5. **Report**: Present synthesized findings
## Agent Report Format
Each agent produces:
```
## [Agent Name] Review
**Files Reviewed**: [list]
**Issues Found**: X total (Y critical, Z major, W minor)
### Critical
- [file:line] Issue description
### Major
- [file:line] Issue description
### Minor
- [file:line] Issue description
**Agent Score**: XX/100
```
## Synthesis Format
After all agents complete:
```
## Excellence Review Summary
**Target**: [files/folder reviewed]
**Agents Run**: 6/6 completed
### Critical Issues (fix immediately)
- [Security] SQL injection in users.ts:45
- [Performance] N+1 query in orders.ts:78
### High Priority (fix before merge)
- [Accessibility] Missing ARIA labels in Modal.tsx
- [Security] Rate limiting missing on /api/login
### Medium Priority (fix soon)
- [Code Quality] Function exceeds 30 lines in utils.ts:120
- [Style] Inconsistent naming convention
### Low Priority (nice to have)
- [Documentation] Missing JSDoc on helper functions
- [Style] Import order not alphabetized
---
## Score Breakdown
| Agent | Score | Issues |
|-------|-------|--------|
| Code Quality | 85/100 | 3 |
| Security | 78/100 | 5 |
| Performance | 92/100 | 1 |
| Accessibility | 70/100 | 6 |
| Documentation | 88/100 | 2 |
| Style | 95/100 | 1 |
**Composite Score**: 84/100
### Verdict
- ✗ Below 80: Block commit
- ✓ 80-89: Commit OK, PR needs fixes
- ✓ 90-94: PR ready
- ✓ 95+: Excellence achieved
**Recommendation**: Fix 2 Critical and 2 High Priority issues before merge
```
## Quality Gates
| Score | Threshold | Action |
|-------|-----------|--------|
| 95+ | Excellence | Ship with confidence |
| 90-94 | PR Ready | Create PR, minor polish |
| 80-89 | Commit OK | Save progress, needs work |
| <80 | Blocked | Must fix critical issues |
## Scoring Rules
- **Critical issue**: -20 points
- **Major issue**: -10 points
- **Minor issue**: -3 points
- **No issues in category**: +5 bonus
- **Maximum**: 100 points
## Agent Selection by File Type
| File Type | Recommended Agents |
|-----------|-------------------|
| `.ts/.js` (API) | Security, Performance, Code Quality |
| `.tsx/.jsx` (UI) | Accessibility, Performance, Style |
| `.py` (Backend) | Security, Performance, Code Quality |
| `.sql` | Security, Performance |
| `.md` | Documentation, Style |
| Config files | Security, Code Quality |
## Customizing Agents
Add project-specific checks:
```
### Security Agent - Project Additions
- Check for PII logging (GDPR compliance)
- Verify JWT validation on all /api/admin routes
```
## Invoking Excellence Review
```
/excellence src/components/
run excellence review on the checkout module
comprehensive review: src/api/
```
What This Does
This playbook runs 6 specialized review agents in parallel, each examining your code from a different angle. Results are synthesized into a single prioritized report with a quality score.
Why parallel specialists beat one generalist: When Claude reviews everything at once, it spreads attention thin. Six focused agents — each with laser focus on one dimension — catch more issues than a single pass. The orchestrator combines results into actionable priorities.
Prerequisites
- Claude Code installed
- Code/content to review
- Understanding of quality dimensions relevant to your project
[Agent Name] Review
Files Reviewed: [list] Issues Found: X total (Y critical, Z major, W minor)
Critical
- [file:line] Issue description
Major
- [file:line] Issue description
Minor
- [file:line] Issue description
Agent Score: XX/100
## Synthesis Format
After all agents complete:
Excellence Review Summary
Target: [files/folder reviewed] Agents Run: 6/6 completed
Critical Issues (fix immediately)
- [Security] SQL injection in users.ts:45
- [Performance] N+1 query in orders.ts:78
High Priority (fix before merge)
- [Accessibility] Missing ARIA labels in Modal.tsx
- [Security] Rate limiting missing on /api/login
Medium Priority (fix soon)
- [Code Quality] Function exceeds 30 lines in utils.ts:120
- [Style] Inconsistent naming convention
Low Priority (nice to have)
- [Documentation] Missing JSDoc on helper functions
- [Style] Import order not alphabetized
Score Breakdown
| Agent | Score | Issues |
|---|---|---|
| Code Quality | 85/100 | 3 |
| Security | 78/100 | 5 |
| Performance | 92/100 | 1 |
| Accessibility | 70/100 | 6 |
| Documentation | 88/100 | 2 |
| Style | 95/100 | 1 |
Composite Score: 84/100
Verdict
- ✗ Below 80: Block commit
- ✓ 80-89: Commit OK, PR needs fixes
- ✓ 90-94: PR ready
- ✓ 95+: Excellence achieved
Recommendation: Fix 2 Critical and 2 High Priority issues before merge
## Quality Gates
| Score | Threshold | Action |
|-------|-----------|--------|
| 95+ | Excellence | Ship with confidence |
| 90-94 | PR Ready | Create PR, minor polish |
| 80-89 | Commit OK | Save progress, needs work |
| <80 | Blocked | Must fix critical issues |
## Scoring Rules
- **Critical issue**: -20 points
- **Major issue**: -10 points
- **Minor issue**: -3 points
- **No issues in category**: +5 bonus
- **Maximum**: 100 points
## Agent Selection by File Type
| File Type | Recommended Agents |
|-----------|-------------------|
| `.ts/.js` (API) | Security, Performance, Code Quality |
| `.tsx/.jsx` (UI) | Accessibility, Performance, Style |
| `.py` (Backend) | Security, Performance, Code Quality |
| `.sql` | Security, Performance |
| `.md` | Documentation, Style |
| Config files | Security, Code Quality |
## Customizing Agents
Add project-specific checks:
Security Agent - Project Additions
- Check for PII logging (GDPR compliance)
- Verify JWT validation on all /api/admin routes
## Invoking Excellence Review
/excellence src/components/ run excellence review on the checkout module comprehensive review: src/api/
Step-by-Step Setup
Step 1: Add to CLAUDE.md
Add the excellence review protocol to your project's CLAUDE.md file.
Step 2: Customize agents for your stack
Adjust the agent checks based on your technology:
- React project? Emphasize accessibility and performance agents
- API project? Emphasize security and code quality agents
- Documentation project? Emphasize docs and style agents
Step 3: Run on a module
/excellence src/auth/
Claude will spawn all 6 agents, synthesize results, and produce a scored report.
Step 4: Review and iterate
If certain agents catch too much noise, adjust their rules. If they miss issues, add specific checks.
Example Usage
User:
"/excellence src/components/checkout/"
Claude:
Running excellence review with 6 parallel agents...
Excellence Review Summary
Target: src/components/checkout/ Agents Run: 6/6 completed
Critical Issues (fix immediately)
- [Security] Credit card number logged in debug mode (Cart.tsx:156)
- [Accessibility] Form submit button not keyboard accessible (Checkout.tsx:89)
High Priority
- [Performance] Re-render on every keystroke in payment form (PaymentForm.tsx:34)
- [Code Quality] 85-line function violates complexity threshold (CheckoutFlow.tsx:120)
Medium Priority
- [Documentation] Missing prop types for CartItem component
- [Style] Inconsistent spacing in JSX
Composite Score: 76/100
Verdict: ✗ Below 80 — Must fix critical issues before commit
Tips
- Run early, run often: Catch issues before they compound.
- Focus on critical/high: Minor issues can wait for polish phase.
- Add project rules: Generic agents + project-specific additions = best coverage.
- Use for PRs: Require excellence score >85 for PR approval.
Troubleshooting
Problem: Takes too long on large codebases
Solution: Target specific modules rather than entire repo. Or run on changed files only.
Problem: Agents disagree (style says X, code quality says Y)
Solution: Add priority rules: "When agents conflict, Security > Performance > Quality > Style"
Problem: Score seems arbitrary
Solution: Calibrate weights. If accessibility matters most, weight those issues higher.