multi-agent-review

I need a comprehensive multi-agent parallel code review using the Wave/Gate architecture.

CODE TO REVIEW: [paste code or specify: "Review all files in src/auth/"]

ARCHITECTURE: Wave 1 (Parallel) → Gate 1 (Sequential) → Wave 2 (Parallel) → Gate 2 (Sequential) → Wave 3 (Sequential)

Execute this workflow:

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ WAVE 1: PARALLEL INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Launch 5 parallel tasks. Each task is independent and can run simultaneously.

TASK 1: Security Review Role: Security Engineer Focus:

• OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities
• Input validation and sanitization
• Authentication and authorization flaws
• SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, SSRF
• Secret management and data exposure
• API security and rate limiting
• Cryptography usage

Output JSON format: { "issues": [ { "id": "SEC-001", "severity": "CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW", "category": "authentication|input-validation|data-exposure|cryptography", "cwe_id": "CWE-XXX", "location": "file.js:line", "description": "Detailed description", "attack_vector": "How an attacker could exploit this", "recommendation": "Specific fix with code example" } ], "security_score": 0-3, "summary": "One-line summary" }

TASK 2: Performance Review Role: Performance Engineer Focus:

• Time complexity (O(n²), O(n³) patterns)
• Database queries (N+1, missing indexes, full table scans)
• Memory allocation and leaks
• Unnecessary loops and iterations
• Caching opportunities
• Blocking I/O operations
• Resource pooling

TASK 3: Maintainability Review Role: Future Developer (6 months out, original author gone) Focus:

• Code clarity and readability
• Documentation (comments, docstrings, README)
• Pattern consistency across codebase
• Naming conventions (clear, descriptive)
• Technical debt indicators
• DRY violations
• Magic numbers and hard-coded values
• Complex conditionals

TASK 4: Requirements Validation Role: QA Engineer Focus:

• Requirements coverage (are all requirements implemented?)
• Edge case handling
• Test coverage gaps
• Behavioral correctness
• Missing functionality
• Acceptance criteria satisfaction

TASK 5: Operations Review Role: SRE (on-call at 3am when this breaks) Focus:

• Failure modes and error handling
• Observability (logging, metrics, tracing)
• Timeout and retry logic
• Circuit breakers and graceful degradation
• Resource management (connections, files, memory)
• Deployment/rollback complexity
• Configuration management
• Health checks and readiness probes

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ GATE 1: CONFLICT RESOLUTION (Wait for all Wave 1 tasks) ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

After all 5 tasks complete, consolidate findings:

TASK 6: Consolidation Role: Senior Technical Lead

Tasks:

1. DEDUPLICATE ISSUES

   • Same issue reported by multiple reviewers → merge
   • Similar issues → merge if same root cause
   • Different perspectives on same code → keep separate if addressing different concerns

2. RESOLVE SEVERITY CONFLICTS Rules:

   • Security CRITICAL always wins
   • Take highest severity if 2+ reviewers agree it's a problem
   • Downgrade if only 1 reviewer flagged and others cleared

3. CALCULATE CONFIDENCE

   • Found by 1 reviewer: confidence = 0.60
   • Found by 2 reviewers: confidence = 0.80
   • Found by 3+ reviewers: confidence = 0.95
   • Severity disagreement: reduce confidence by 0.15

4. IDENTIFY CROSS-CUTTING CONCERNS

   • Issues affecting multiple domains
   • Systemic patterns (same problem in multiple places)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ WAVE 2: PARALLEL CROSS-VALIDATION ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Launch 2-3 parallel tasks reviewing the consolidated findings.

TASK 7: Meta-Review Role: Quality Control Lead

Check:

1. COVERAGE GAPS - What wasn't examined?
2. FALSE POSITIVES - Are flagged issues actually problems?
3. SEVERITY CALIBRATION - Are CRITICAL ratings actually critical?
4. REVIEWER QUALITY - Did reviewers follow their focus areas?
5. SYSTEMIC PATTERNS - Do issues indicate deeper architectural problems?

TASK 8: Integration Analysis Role: Systems Architect

Check for:

• System-wide impacts of issues
• Cascading failure scenarios
• Service dependency problems
• Data flow issues across boundaries

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ GATE 2: FINAL SYNTHESIS (Wait for Wave 2) ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

TASK 9: Final Report

Generate:

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

   • Total issues by severity
   • Blockers (CRITICAL issues that prevent merge/deploy)
   • Key systemic issues

2. PRIORITIZED ACTION LIST

   • Must fix before merge (CRITICAL)
   • Should fix before deploy (HIGH)
   • Can fix later (MEDIUM/LOW)

3. BLOCKING ASSESSMENT

   • BLOCKS MERGE: Has CRITICAL issues
   • BLOCKS DEPLOY: Has HIGH operational risks
   • APPROVED: Ready for production
   • APPROVED_WITH_NOTES: Deploy with monitoring plan

4. CONVERGENCE METRICS

   • Number of issues found: CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW
   • Confidence level: X% high-confidence issues
   • False positive estimate: X%
   • Coverage assessment: X% of code reviewed thoroughly

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ WAVE 3: CONVERGENCE CHECK ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Determine if another iteration is needed:

CONVERGED if:

• new_critical_count == 0 AND
• new_issue_rate < 0.10 AND
• false_positive_rate < 0.20

ESCALATE_TO_HUMAN if:

• iteration >= 3 OR
• Found conflicting CRITICAL issues OR
• Uncertain about severity

ITERATE if:

• new_critical_count > 0 OR
• new_issue_rate >= 0.10

If ITERATE: Start Wave 1 again focusing only on CRITICAL and HIGH issues.