parallel-code-review

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

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.

2installs

Sourcespencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills

Added on2026-08-15

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills parallel-code-review

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

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:

De-duplicate findings that appear in multiple dimensions (count once, worst severity).
Order by severity, then by fix cost.
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.