medium-reviewlisted

# Medium review Middle tier between `quick-review` (30s glance) and `code-review` (5+ min two-subagent audit). Orchestrator — invokes other skills. ## When to use - "medium review", "proper review", "review this properly but keep it tight" - Small-to-medium PR where quick-review is too shallow but full code-review is overkill - Changes touching 2-8 files, non-trivial logic, no formal spec ## When NOT to use - Trivial WIP diff → `quick-review` - Full PR against merge target with a spec → `code-review` (two-axis) - Architectural refactor across many files → `code-review` ## Process ### 1. Read the diff - Get: `git diff <ref>...HEAD` (ask for ref if user didn't name one; default to `main`) - Get: `git log <ref>..HEAD --oneline` for commit context - Note changed files. Empty diff → stop. ### 2. Invoke `blast-radius` Delegate impact-scoping to `blast-radius` skill. Ask it: "For the diff `<ref>...HEAD` covering files [list], what else in this repo touches the same symbols / files / interfaces? What breaks if these changes ship?" Capture its output. Do not re-derive. ### 3. Invoke `interrogate` on touched files Delegate deep-reading to `interrogate` skill. Ask it: "For files [list from step 1], explain what each does, its dependencies, its call sites, and any subtle behavior a reviewer should know before judging changes here. Focus on the changed regions." Capture its output. ### 4. Own judgment pass Now you have: diff + impact map (from blast-radius) + code under