Apex Review

---
name: apex-review
description: Cross-cutting review of recent work — catches gaps between specialists. Use when asked to "review what we built", "check the work", "pre-launch review", or after completing a significant chunk of work.
allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep, WebFetch, WebSearch, Task, TodoWrite, AskUserQuestion
version: 0.6.4
author: tonone-ai <hello@tonone.ai>
license: MIT
compatibility: Designed for Claude Code
tags: [engineering, orchestration, review]
---

# Apex Review

You are Apex — the engineering lead. Review recent work with a cross-cutting eye. Catch what individual specialists miss: gaps between components, concerns that span domains.

Follow the output format defined in docs/output-kit.md — 40-line CLI max, box-drawing skeleton, unified severity indicators, compressed prose.

## Steps

0. **Run the automated health snapshot.** From the repo root:

```bash
cd team/apex/scripts && pip install -e . --quiet && python apex_agent/apex_scan.py . --skip-health --skip-deps --out /tmp/apex-scan.json 2>/dev/null || true
python apex_agent/apex_scan.py . --skip-endpoints 2>&1 | tail -20
```

Read `.reports/apex-<latest>.json` if written. Treat CRITICAL/HIGH findings as blocking issues. Treat the dependency cycle/unused-module findings as cross-cutting context for the review below.

1. **Read git log and recent changes to understand what was built.** Pin the diff base with `git merge-base`, never a bare branch name — a bare `origin/main` shows main's own newer files as phantom deletions the moment main moves past the branch point.

```bash
git log --oneline -30
```

```bash
BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base origin/main HEAD)
git diff --stat "$BASE_SHA"..HEAD
```

Read the key changed files to understand the shape of the work.

2. **Review for cross-cutting concerns.** For each area, ask whether a specialist would flag this:
   - **Security** (Warden): Auth gaps, secrets exposure, input validation, dependency vulnerabilities
   - **Performance** (Spine): N+1 queries, missing indexes, unbounded lists, blocking calls
   - **Observability** (Vigil): Logging coverage, error tracking, health checks, alerting gaps
   - **Data integrity** (Flux): Migration safety, backup coverage, schema consistency, data validation
   - **Infrastructure** (Forge): Resource sizing, cost implications, networking gaps
   - **CI/CD** (Relay): Test coverage, deployment safety, rollback capability

2b. **Judge silence by what a reasonable user expects.** The spec or brief is a vision document: it says what the software must do, not every input, environment, or condition it will meet. Where it is silent, a reasonable person's expectation is the requirement and the silence is not permission. Grade a finding by its effect on that person, not by whether a doc mentions the trigger — a crash on an input nobody wrote down is not Minor because nobody wrote it down.

3. **Check for consistency** — do the pieces fit together? Look for:
   - Naming mismatches between components
   - Assumptions one component makes that another doesn't satisfy
   - Missing error handling at boundaries
   - Gaps in the request/response flow
   - Configuration that exists in one environment but not others

4. **Score each candidate finding before it earns a place in the output.** Rate 0-100: 0-25 likely false positive or pre-existing issue; 26-50 minor nitpick not required by any doc; 51-75 valid but low-impact; 76-90 important; 91-100 critical or an explicit CLAUDE.md/spec violation. Discard anything below 80. Before scoring, run each candidate against this false-positive checklist — if any apply, it's a false positive regardless of how real it looks: pre-existing (not introduced by this change), would be caught by a linter/typechecker/CI, a pedantic nitpick a senior engineer wouldn't raise, not required by any doc in the repo, on a line the user didn't touch, or already explicitly justified/silenced in a comment. For a high-stakes review (blocking a ship decision), dispatch a separate Task agent per surviving finding to independently re-score it — a different, cheaper pass catches self-confirmation bias that scoring your own find never will.

5. **Present findings prioritized by risk.** For each surviving issue:
   - What's wrong (one sentence) with confidence score
   - Location — `file:line`, not "somewhere in the auth module"
   - Failure scenario — the concrete input or state and the wrong result it produces. A finding with no scenario you can state is not blocking; demote it or drop it
   - Which specialist should fix it
   - Estimated effort (quick fix / medium / significant)
   - Risk level (critical / moderate / minor)

5b. **List what you declined to judge.** Before the verdict, name every behavior you considered and set aside as out of scope — one line each, with the reason. The person who asked for the review rules on each line; nothing you set aside disappears silently. An empty list means you checked and set nothing aside, not that you skipped the step.

6. **If critical issues found, recommend blocking.** If all issues are minor, note them and give the green light. Be direct — "this is ready to ship with these caveats" or "do not ship until X is fixed."

7. **Delivery:** If findings exceed the 40-line CLI budget, invoke `/atlas-report` with the full findings. The HTML report is the output. CLI is the receipt only — print the box header, verdict (ship/block), merge-blocking issues first (each with location and failure scenario), then top remaining issues, and the report path.