Adaptive Code Review
Review code changes with model depth proportional to change complexity. No wasted opus tokens on trivial diffs.
Step 1: Collect Signals
Run these commands to gather diff signals:
# Get diff stats (against HEAD~1 or origin/main, whichever makes sense)
BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD origin/main 2>/dev/null || echo "HEAD~1")
git diff --stat $BASE..HEAD
git diff --numstat $BASE..HEAD
Extract:
- lines_changed: total added + deleted
- files_changed: number of files
- dirs_changed: number of unique top-level directories touched (cross-module indicator)
Then scan for high-risk patterns — only in code files (exclude .md/.txt/.json/.yaml from grep):
git diff $BASE..HEAD -- '*.ts' '*.js' '*.py' '*.go' '*.rs' '*.java' '*.c' '*.cpp' '*.rb' '*.sh' | grep -ciE '(password|secret|token|auth|session|cookie|sql|inject|exec\(|eval\(|lock|mutex|semaphore|atomic|concurrent|unsafe)'
- risk_hits: count of matches (0 if only docs/config changed)
Step 2: Route
| Condition | Depth | Model |
|---|---|---|
| lines_changed < 50 AND files_changed <= 1 AND risk_hits == 0 | fast | haiku |
| lines_changed < 200 AND dirs_changed <= 1 AND risk_hits <= 2 | medium | sonnet |
| Everything else (>200 lines OR dirs_changed >= 2 OR risk_hits > 2) | deep | opus |
Announce the routing decision:
Review depth: [fast|medium|deep] (N lines, N files, N dirs, N risk hits)
Step 3: Dispatch
Fast (haiku)
Spawn agent with model: "haiku", subagent_type of your code-review agent:
Prompt focus: formatting, naming conventions, obvious bugs, unused imports. Skip architecture analysis. Keep it under 30 seconds.
Medium (sonnet)
Spawn agent with model: "sonnet", subagent_type of your code-review agent:
Standard code review: correctness, error handling, test coverage, code quality.
Deep (opus)
Spawn agent with model: "opus", subagent_type of your code-review agent:
Full review: architecture, security, performance, cross-module impact. If language-specific reviewers exist (python-reviewer, go-reviewer, database-reviewer), spawn them in parallel.
Step 4: Report
Present results with depth label so the user knows what level of review was applied:
## Adaptive Review: [FAST|MEDIUM|DEEP]
Signals: {lines} lines, {files} files, {dirs} dirs, {risk_hits} risk hits
[reviewer output]
If fast review finds anything concerning, suggest upgrading: "Fast review flagged potential issues. Run /adaptive-review --deep for thorough analysis."
Overrides
User can force depth:
/adaptive-review --fast— force fast regardless of signals/adaptive-review --deep— force deep regardless of signals/adaptive-review --medium— force medium