Run four parallel read-only subagents that each review the same diff from a different lens — security, performance, correctness, and readability — then merge findings into one report. Use before merging large or risky PRs.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Parallel Code Review?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/0xaidan-parallel-code-review)
---
name: parallel-code-review
description: Run four parallel read-only subagents that each review the same diff from a different lens — security, performance, correctness, and readability — then merge findings into one report. Use before merging large or risky PRs.
user-invocable: true
---
# Parallel Code Review
Use Cursor’s **Task** tool to run **four** `explore` (read-only) subagents at once. Each subagent only reads code and produces findings for one dimension. The main agent merges results into a single prioritized review — something only a multi-agent setup does efficiently.
## When to use
- Large diffs or refactors where a single pass misses categories.
- Security-sensitive changes (auth, payments, parsing untrusted input).
- Performance-sensitive paths (hot loops, N+1 queries, bundle entry points).
## Workflow
### 1. Scope the change set
Prefer a concrete list of files for reviewers:
```bash
git diff --name-only origin/main...HEAD
```
Or paste the PR link and let the main agent list changed files from the branch.
### 2. Launch four parallel subagents
Send **one message** with **four** Task invocations, each `subagent_type: "explore"` and **readonly: true**, with prompts like:
**Security**
```
Read-only review: SECURITY
Changed files:
<list>
Focus: injection (SQL, shell, XSS), authZ/authN gaps, secrets in code, unsafe deserialization, path traversal, SSRF, IDOR, dependency CVEs mentioned in diff.
Output:
- Critical / High / Medium / Low findings
- File:line and short fix recommendation
- "No issues" if nothing material
```
**Performance**
```
Read-only review: PERFORMANCE
Changed files:
<list>
Focus: N+1 queries, missing indexes, accidental O(n²) loops, bundle size impact, unnecessary re-renders, sync I/O on hot paths, unbounded caches.
Output: same severity + location format as above.
```
**Correctness**
```
Read-only review: CORRECTNESS
Changed files:
<list>
Focus: logic bugs, off-by-one, wrong edge cases, race conditions, error handling gaps, breaking API changes, test gaps for new behavior.
Output: same format.
```
**Readability / maintainability**
```
Read-only review: READABILITY
Changed files:
<list>
Focus: naming, duplication, abstraction boundaries, file size, unclear control flow, missing types/docs where they would prevent bugs.
Output: same format; prefer suggestions over nitpicks.
```
### 3. Synthesize
The main agent should:
1. De-duplicate findings that appear in multiple dimensions (count once, worst severity).
2. Order by severity, then by fix cost.
3. Produce a short executive summary (5 bullets max) and a table or list of actionable items.
### 4. Optional — address findings
Fix in the main agent or spawn targeted **non-readonly** follow-up tasks only for approved items.
## Notes
- Keep prompts **read-only** so parallel runs never fight over writes.
- If the diff is huge, split by directory and run four reviewers **per directory** in a second wave — do not cram unrelated megadiffs into one pass.
- This complements human review; it does not replace compliance or security sign-off for regulated environments.
