Hi Boris, what is the advantage of using /code-review vs just asking Opus to “code review”?

As a casual user working on hobby projects, I struggle to keep up with the pace of changes and knowing what to use when. My default now is to use Opus for all coding (sonnet is fine but seems dumber) and to prompt it for everything I need. I’ve had great success with this but clearly I’m missing power user functions with the slash commands and such.

> # do an expensive and extremely thorough review (reliably catches >99% of bugs, costs $3-20 per review depending on complexity):

/code-review ultra

main suggestion would be to sound a lot less optimistic about that it finds 99% of bugs or that its at all thorough, and instead list that it is time capped, and will only find bugs that you explicitly tell it to look for.

i used my three runs of ultrareview.

the first run with no other prompting found a couple typos in markdown only

the second one i prompted it with several themes of known open bugs in the code, and it found 6 items

and then the third one i ran after doing an actual long audit through gemini to make a much more detailed prompt about issues in the code

and for that one, instead of doing an exhaustive run, it just never started, so no idea if it worked

but the experience had no relation at all with the reliability or thoroughness claims

Hey Boris, thanks for the great product and for listening!

I find the mix between slash commands that are programmatic harness configuration and control commands (/config, /model, /feedback, /fork, /usage, etc.) and ones that are little more than prompt template insertion (/code-review, /<skill>, etc.) to be a little confusing and unnecessary. A slash command should be one thing, and one thing only: a command for the harness, not the agent.

When I invoke a slash command like /code-review, I should be invoking some additional harness functionality, something above and beyond the agent's sphere of influence - not just pasting some hidden text into the next turn. Otherwise, why wouldn't I just say "Claude, review this code"?

Yet most of these "added value" commands bloating the slash command list, are just shortcuts for copy and paste. I don't want to go to have to learn the syntax of a special /code-review command (which options are positional args, which are --flags, etc.), and I'm much less likely to use or even be aware of a command like this, when I can just ask "Do a balanced code review and fix the issues", or use the GUI to set the effort level to xhigh before asking "Review my code." That way I can also be more specific about exactly what I need, rather than relying on what's in the canned prompt - a prompt which I'll probably never read and vet myself anyway. The value added by the slash command needs to be really high compared to just typing a prompt, for it to justify the friction of discovery and learning the syntax.

So I suppose I'm advocating for a different system. Keep slash commands for meta-level harness control and configuration, and add a new mechanism for canned prompt insertion, one which is tailor made for that purpose rather than overloading the slash command system. Let the user see what's in the canned prompts, and even make adjustments or edits as needed before sending them, one-time or persisted. Provide a GUI in the app with the user's favorite prompts, where the user can add, delete, and edit them, making it easy to invoke and insert them as needed. Or let the agent automatically discover and use them as needed, rather than requiring the user to remember and recall their magic shortcuts and their arguments. That's just one idea.

Skills, plugins, commands, and so on, need to be consolidated not just for code review of course but across the full architecture of how prompt templates are managed.

Hey Boris, some feedback. I like the new /code-review skill but was disappointed you guys removed /simplify because I quite liked the focus on finding code reuse/efficiency opportunities.

I see now in 2.1.152 you added those focus areas back to /code-review, but still bundled with the correctness finding. It would be great to have more fine grained control over the /code-review angles beyond just effort level. Or maybe you would recommend that I just specify that as freeform input after effort level?

> reliably catches >99% of bugs

In what scope?

Thanks, Boris, for reading and reviewing :)

[flagged]