HN Explorer

Show HN: adamsreview – better multi-agent PR reviews for Claude Code (github.com)

85 points by adamthegoalie ↗ HN
I built adamsreview, a Claude Code plugin that runs deeper, multi-stage PR reviews using parallel sub-agents, validation passes, persistent JSON state, and optional ensemble review via Codex CLI and PR bot comments.

On my own PRs, it has been catching dramatically more real bugs than Claude’s built-in /review, /ultrareview, CodeRabbit, Greptile, and Codex’s built-in review, while producing fewer false positives.

adamsreview is six Claude Code slash commands packaged as a plugin: review, codex-review, add, promote, walkthrough, and fix. I modeled it after the built-in /review command and extended it meaningfully.

You can clear context between review stages because state is stored in JSON artifacts on disk, with built-in scripts for keeping it updated.

The walkthrough command uses Claude’s AskUserQuestion feature to walk you through uncertain findings or items needing human review one by one. Then, the fix command dispatches per-fix-group agents and re-reviews the work with Opus, reverting any regressions before committing survivors.

It runs against your regular Claude Code subscription (Max plan recommended), unlike /ultrareview, which charges against your Extra Usage pool.

I would love feedback from Claude Code users, pro devs, and anyone with strong opinions about AI code reviews.

Repo: https://github.com/adamjgmiller/adamsreview

Install: /plugin marketplace add adamjgmiller/adamsreview, /plugin install adamsreview@adamsreview

31 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 57.3 ms ] thread
stingraycharles
Holy vibe coding batman this looks like a repository with just a bazillion prompts of which there are already a million.

Seems like it would create a lot of friction and burn a lot of tokens.

bilekas
"I pay Claude, to use Claude, to write instructions for Claude, to review code from Claude"

Have we all just given up?

docheinestages
We seem to be fighting complexity with complexity. Does it really help?
yuppiepuppie
The best code review improvement I have done in my workflow with Claude is using tuicr (https://tuicr.dev).

It runs locally, YOU review all the code locally, and feedback that to Claude.

Agents reviewing AI code always felt dirty to me, especially when working on production (non-disposable) code.

2001zhaozhao
I wonder if a custom UI that auto-layouts different files in a 2D grid and connects them to each other in a graph in an intuitive way would help a lot with review velocity.

As in, if you have a large screen, a particularly-trained/prompted AI can organize the code changes in a "flowchart" with floating windows you can easily follow

Maybe in this UI, each code piece also comes with a summary from an agent that has already auto-reviewed the whole PR and creates a basic summary (instructed to be neutral but surface issues if it finds any).

thesimon
> Runs against your regular Claude Code subscription (Max plan recommended) — unlike /ultrareview, which charges against your Extra Usage pool.

How expensive is it to run in your experience? In $ or tokens?

nkmnz
Great project! I’ve build something similar, not very clean and polished, but focussed around deterministic orchestration of multiple agents via typescript, because a coordinating agent was notoriously bad at things such as fetching relevant tickets and other context. One thing I struggle with so far, though, are the actual instructions for the review themselves. They are either too vague, leading to superficial or overly broad reviews, or too specific and thus not applicable to different kinds of PRs…
azurewraith
You've touched on the core issue... prompt based orchestration is non-idempotent. Same input, different orchestration paths every run. I've had better experience enforcing tool restrictions in discrete phases with deterministic code over orchestrating via LLM. Prompt level instructions get ignored, it's much harder to ignore a protocol-level tool restriction. It's simple and yet oddly VERY effective.
Ozzie-D
the irony of multi-agent code review is that the people who would use it are already the ones who care about code quality. the real problem is everyone else just hitting accept on whatever claude spits out without even reading the diff. tooling for review keeps getting better while the average review effort keeps going down.
moomin
Is there a good way of adding in your own rules to the review? I’m always in the market for better review tools but I also need to check against internal coding stands and expectations,
parasmadan
Why not just use an eval harness to prove this catches more real bugs? Benchmarks on actual bug classes would be far more convincing than comparing against /review.
madamelic
Neat idea.

I am more curious about your AI workflow as I stay away from other's tools because I don't trust vibe-code related tools.

What is the workflow difference between `fragments/` and `plans/`. They seem logically the same but seem to have been used for different purposes.

Is this something it did on its own or is this something you prompted it to do?

kuri-sun
Curious what kinds of bugs the multi-agent setup catches thatsingle-pass review misses in practice. Is it more about coverage(different agents looking at different aspects) or about getting a second opinion on the same aspect? The README has examples but the mechanism by which the parallelism actually helps isn't obvious to me from them.
adamthegoalie
Does anyone have an open PR on a public repo?

I'll run this against your PR for you with my CC credits as a sort-of benchmark! Send me your PR link :)

I'm going to create one on one of my other repos meanwhile and add a link to the review when it's ready.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
[dead] quantumadopter
[flagged]
adamthegoalie
Well, it doesn’t give you an opinion on whether you should merge or not. It gives you a list of issues along with details about those issues, such as fix hints, and whether you need human attention before fixing.

It’s all given to you in a structured file, in your chat, and as a nicely formatted PR comment.

Still up to the human to decide whether and when to merge based on the output!