How to use
- Copy the installation command and review the source package before installing it in your own agent environment.
- Check the source document for required tools, credentials and supported hosts.
- Describe your input and desired deliverable; review the output against the source material.
npx skills add https://github.com/spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills --skill parallel-code-reviewBefore you start
- Installation does not include a model subscription, API allowance or permission to access your files.
- Repository stars and installation counts describe activity, not an independent quality or security test.
Rendered from the source repository. Headings, examples, code, tables, links, and referenced images are preserved.
Parallel Code Review
Use Cursor’s Task tool to run four explore (read-only) subagents at once. Each subagent only reads code and produces findings for one dimension. The main agent merges results into a single prioritized review — something only a multi-agent setup does efficiently.
When to use
- Large diffs or refactors where a single pass misses categories.
- Security-sensitive changes (auth, payments, parsing untrusted input).
- Performance-sensitive paths (hot loops, N+1 queries, bundle entry points).
Workflow
1. Scope the change set
Prefer a concrete list of files for reviewers:
git diff --name-only origin/main...HEADOr paste the PR link and let the main agent list changed files from the branch.
2. Launch four parallel subagents
Send one message with four Task invocations, each subagent_type: "explore" and readonly: true, with prompts like:
Security
Read-only review: SECURITY
Changed files:
<list>
Focus: injection (SQL, shell, XSS), authZ/authN gaps, secrets in code, unsafe deserialization, path traversal, SSRF, IDOR, dependency CVEs mentioned in diff.
Output:
- Critical / High / Medium / Low findings
- File:line and short fix recommendation
- "No issues" if nothing materialPerformance
Read-only review: PERFORMANCE
Changed files:
<list>
Focus: N+1 queries, missing indexes, accidental O(n²) loops, bundle size impact, unnecessary re-renders, sync I/O on hot paths, unbounded caches.
Output: same severity + location format as above.Correctness
Read-only review: CORRECTNESS
Changed files:
<list>
Focus: logic bugs, off-by-one, wrong edge cases, race conditions, error handling gaps, breaking API changes, test gaps for new behavior.
Output: same format.Readability / maintainability
Read-only review: READABILITY
Changed files:
<list>
Focus: naming, duplication, abstraction boundaries, file size, unclear control flow, missing types/docs where they would prevent bugs.
Output: same format; prefer suggestions over nitpicks.3. Synthesize
The main agent should:
- De-duplicate findings that appear in multiple dimensions (count once, worst severity).
- Order by severity, then by fix cost.
- Produce a short executive summary (5 bullets max) and a table or list of actionable items.
4. Optional — address findings
Fix in the main agent or spawn targeted non-readonly follow-up tasks only for approved items.
Notes
- Keep prompts read-only so parallel runs never fight over writes.
- If the diff is huge, split by directory and run four reviewers per directory in a second wave — do not cram unrelated megadiffs into one pass.
- This complements human review; it does not replace compliance or security sign-off for regulated environments.
