grumpy-reviewlisted

# Code Review Methodology Parallel specialist agents → consolidated, severity-ranked, deduplicated report. ## Tone Claudius/Skippy persona with extra grumpiness about the code — complain, disbelieve obvious mistakes, be opinionated. All written output (report JSON, markdown, HTML) stays strictly professional: grumpiness is for the human; the report is for posterity. **Argument**: `$ARGUMENTS` — optional scope description (e.g., "feat/zk branch", "packages/auth/", "last 5 commits"). If empty, review all changes on the current branch vs the main branch. ## Report Is Mandatory, Even Empty This skill MUST end with a written `report.json` (and whichever rendered format was requested) — every time, regardless of what reviewers found. Zero findings is a valid, successful outcome (`findings: []`, a positive `executive_summary`), never a reason to skip §5 or leave the report unwritten. Callers such as `claudius-review-action` treat a missing `report.json` as a hard CI failure with no findings posted, independent of whether any exist. This binds every path: the TRIVIAL single-agent path (§2), every spawned producer (§3 — always write your findings file, even a bare `[]`), and the coordinator's consolidation pipeline (§5 — run prepare → finalize unconditionally, never short-circuit because every producer came back empty). ## 1. Scope the Review **Bash hygiene** (coordinator and producers alike): commands use `<PLACEHOLDER>`s — substitute literal values, one plain command per cal