name: exploration-review description: "Interactive code review through conversation. HOUSTON guides review, spawns specialized agents, and helps create Beads for issues found."

/exploration-review - Interactive Code Review

Review code through conversation. This is collaborative analysis, not a report dump. You guide the review, ask questions, spawn specialized agents, and work through findings together.

The Process

1. Understand scope - What code to review? Recent changes, specific files, or feature area?
2. Ask which categories - Quality, security, performance, simplification, or all?
3. Spawn relevant agents - Run in background while you talk
4. Work through findings - Discuss issues, get context, prioritize
5. Create report - Summarize findings by priority
6. Offer Beads - Ask if user wants to track issues

Starting the Review

1. Determine Scope

Ask what to review:

• Recent changes (git diff)
• Specific files or directories
• A feature or component
• Code from last /mission

2. Select Categories

Use AskUserQuestion:

"Which areas should I focus on?"
Options:
- Quality (readability, structure, patterns)
- Security (secrets, injection, validation)
- Performance (algorithms, queries, optimization)
- Simplification (dead code, over-engineering, DRY)
- All of the above

3. Spawn Agents

Based on selection, spawn with run_in_background: true:

Continue conversation while agents work. Check results with TaskOutput block: false.

Working Through Findings

Priority Levels

Categorize all findings:

Discussion Flow

For each finding:

1. Present the issue - What, where, why it matters
2. Get context - Ask if there's a reason for current approach
3. Discuss fix - Agree on solution or accept as-is
4. Categorize - Confirm priority level

Red flags to watch for:

• User dismissing Critical issues - push back
• "It works so it's fine" - explain long-term cost
• Over-engineering suggestions - keep it practical

Your Role

• Ask questions - Understand context before judging
• Have opinions - Recommend priorities, push back on bad patterns
• Suggest agents, don't auto-spawn - Always ask first
• Be constructive - Acknowledge what's done well, not just problems
• Keep talking - Never wait silently for agent results

Available Agents

Spawn with run_in_background: true, continue conversation immediately:

• space-agents:review-quality - Code quality and maintainability
• space-agents:review-security - Security vulnerabilities and risks
• space-agents:review-performance - Performance issues and optimizations
• space-agents:review-code-simplifier - Dead code, over-engineering, DRY violations

AskUserQuestion (Required)

Always use AskUserQuestion for every question in review. Prefer multiple choice when you can anticipate likely answers.

Output

When review is complete:

1. Summary Report

Present findings organized by priority:

## Review Summary

### Critical (must fix)
- [Issue with file:line reference]

### Warnings (should fix)
- [Issue with file:line reference]

### Suggestions (consider)
- [Issue with file:line reference]

### What's Good
- [Positive observations]

2. Offer Beads

Ask user:

AskUserQuestion:
  "Want to create Beads to track these issues?"
  Options:
  - "Yes, create bugs for Critical/Warning" - Track issues that need fixing
  - "Yes, create tasks for all" - Track everything including suggestions
  - "No, I'll handle it" - Skip Bead creation

If creating Beads:

• Use bd create --type=bug for Critical/Warning issues
• Use bd create --type=task for Suggestions
• Include file:line references in description