Dg

Dinesh vs Gilfoyle Code Review

Two-agent adversarial code review inspired by HBO's Silicon Valley. Gilfoyle attacks the code with withering technical precision. Dinesh defends it with flustered competence. The banter entertains; the back-and-forth produces genuinely better reviews.

Invocation

• /dg — review git diff (staged + unstaged)
• /dg 3 — git diff, max 3 rounds
• /dg src/auth.ts — review specific file
• /dg src/auth.ts 3 — specific file, 3 rounds max

Parse Arguments

1. No args → target = git diff, cap = 5
2. Number only → target = git diff, cap = that number
3. Path only → target = that path, cap = 5
4. Path + number → target = path, cap = number

Orchestration

Step 1: Gather Code

If git diff:

git diff HEAD
git diff --staged

Combine both diffs. If both are empty, tell the user there's nothing to review.

If file/path: Read the target file(s). If path is a directory, read all source files in it.

Always: Gather dependency context. Look for dependency files in the project root and include them in the context sent to agents:

• package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml (Node.js)
• requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, Pipfile.lock (Python)
• go.mod, go.sum (Go)
• pom.xml, build.gradle (Java)
• Gemfile, Gemfile.lock (Ruby)
• Cargo.toml, Cargo.lock (Rust)
• composer.json, composer.lock (PHP)

These are needed for Gilfoyle's dependency vulnerability scan.

Step 2: Run the Debate

Initialize: round = 0, debate_history = []

digraph debate {
    "Gather code" [shape=box];
    "Dispatch Gilfoyle" [shape=box];
    "New issues found?" [shape=diamond];
    "Dispatch Dinesh" [shape=box];
    "All conceded, no pushback?" [shape=diamond];
    "Round >= cap?" [shape=diamond];
    "Ask user: continue?" [shape=diamond];
    "Synthesize final review" [shape=doublecircle];

    "Gather code" -> "Dispatch Gilfoyle";
    "Dispatch Gilfoyle" -> "New issues found?";
    "New issues found?" -> "Synthesize final review" [label="no — converged"];
    "New issues found?" -> "Dispatch Dinesh" [label="yes"];
    "Dispatch Dinesh" -> "All conceded, no pushback?";
    "All conceded, no pushback?" -> "Synthesize final review" [label="yes — converged"];
    "All conceded, no pushback?" -> "Round >= cap?";
    "Round >= cap?" -> "Dispatch Gilfoyle" [label="no — next round"];
    "Round >= cap?" -> "Ask user: continue?" [label="yes"];
    "Ask user: continue?" -> "Dispatch Gilfoyle" [label="yes — extend cap"];
    "Ask user: continue?" -> "Synthesize final review" [label="no"];
}

Each round:

1. Dispatch Gilfoyle agent (Agent tool, general-purpose) with:

   • Full content of gilfoyle-agent.md from this skill's directory
   • The code under review
   • Full debate history
   • Round number
   • Instruction: "You are doing research only — read the code and produce your review. Do NOT edit any files."

2. Display Gilfoyle's banter to the user.

3. Check convergence: Parse Gilfoyle's FINDINGS section. If all findings are repeats from previous rounds → converge.

4. Dispatch Dinesh agent (Agent tool, general-purpose) with:

   • Full content of dinesh-agent.md from this skill's directory
   • The code under review
   • Gilfoyle's latest full response
   • Full debate history
   • Round number
   • Instruction: "You are doing research only — read the code and produce your defense. Do NOT edit any files."

5. Display Dinesh's banter to the user.

6. Check convergence: Parse Dinesh's FINDINGS section. If every point is [concede] with zero [defend] or [dismiss] → converge.

7. Append both responses to debate_history, increment round.

8. If round >= cap: Ask user: "These two could go all night. Continue for more rounds? (y/N)"

   • Yes → extend cap by original amount, continue loop
   • No → proceed to synthesis

Convergence announcements (pick one that fits):

• "Gilfoyle has run out of things to hate. Unprecedented."
• "Dinesh has conceded defeat. As expected."
• "These two are going in circles. Separating them before it gets physical."

Step 3: Synthesize Final Review

After the debate ends, produce a structured summary from the full debate transcript.

Display format:

## Dinesh vs Gilfoyle Review — [target]
### [N] rounds of mass destruction

---
### Best of the Banter
[2-4 of the funniest or most insightful exchanges from the debate]

---

### Verdict

#### Critical (Gilfoyle won, Dinesh conceded)
[Issues where Dinesh couldn't mount a defense — these are real and need fixing]
- `file:line` — issue — fix

#### Important (Gilfoyle won after debate)
[Issues Dinesh tried to defend but Gilfoyle's argument was stronger]
- `file:line` — issue — fix

#### Contested (Dinesh held his ground)
[Issues where Dinesh's defense was valid — code is likely fine]
- `file:line` — what was raised — why the defense holds

#### Dismissed (Gilfoyle was nitpicking)
[Issues both sides agree don't matter]
- `file:line` — what was raised — why it's a non-issue

### Strengths
[Things even Gilfoyle grudgingly acknowledged were good]

### Score
Gilfoyle: X | Dinesh: Y
[Tongue-in-cheek tally of who won more arguments]

### Recommended Changes
[Clean checklist — no banter, no context, just what to do]
- [ ] `file:line` — what to change
- [ ] `file:line` — what to change
- [ ] ...

If no changes needed: "Nothing to fix. Gilfoyle is furious."