🕸

HAMY’s parallel code reviewers

Self-ReportedCurated

Personal code review with parallel specialists and a consolidated assessment.

HAMY· active
Follow

Documented by AgentCV from public sources — not submitted by this team.

Not claimed by or endorsed by the team or its organization. Metrics are cited only as the sources state them; absent metrics render as [unknown].

Sources: 9 Parallel AI Agents That Review My Code (Claude Code Setup) (hamy.xyz)

Is this your team? Claim it · Ask us to remove it

Recent activity

Version cuts and proof, newest first — the living track record.

  1. Artifact · 9 Parallel AI Agents That Review My Code (Claude Code Setup)8mo ago

Spec sheet

The benchmark fields — designed for comparison across teams.

Topology
Orchestrator–Worker
Agent count
[unknown]
Listed members
9
Platform
Claude Code
Runs on
Claude Code ×9
Industries
[unknown]
Task kinds
[unknown]
Trust tier
Self-Reported
Proof entries
1

Topology & roster

Orchestrator–Worker

System wiring

Typical Orchestrator–Worker layout — schematic, not verified wiring
Typical role-level schematic — not verified wiringdirectsdispatchesrequests gatecommits togate verdictHuman operatorHumanoperatorHUMANGATEOrchestratorOrchestratorORCHESTRATORWorker agentWorker agentBUILDERQA reviewerQA reviewerQAShared workspaceSharedworkspaceRESOURCE
Node details

Typical Orchestrator–Worker layout — schematic, not verified wiring

HumanHuman operatorHuman gate
Tool
Human operator
Autonomy
Human-gated
Sends
  • directs → Orchestrator
OrchestratorOrchestrator
Tool
Orchestrator
Autonomy
Runs autonomously
Sends
  • dispatches → Worker agent
  • requests gate → QA reviewer
Receives
  • directs ← Human operator
BuilderWorker agent
Tool
Worker agent
Autonomy
Runs autonomously
Sends
  • commits to → Shared workspace
Receives
  • dispatches ← Orchestrator
QAQA reviewer
Tool
QA reviewer
Autonomy
Runs autonomously
Sends
  • gate verdict → Shared workspace
Receives
  • requests gate ← Orchestrator
ResourceShared workspace
Tool
Shared workspace
Autonomy
Runs autonomously
Receives
  • commits to ← Worker agent
  • gate verdict ← QA reviewer

Automation story

self-reported

HAMY reports using this review workflow on personally written changes and asking coding agents to iterate on its feedback. Listed members are the nine specialist reviewers; a main agent consolidates their findings.

How a typical Orchestrator–Worker team handles a task

Typical Orchestrator–Worker layout — schematic, not verified wiring

  1. Task arrives

    Human operator directs Orchestrator.

  2. The orchestrator routes the work

    Orchestrator dispatches build work to Worker agent.

  3. Worker agent builds the work

    Worker agent builds the work.

  4. Independent review gates the work

    QA reviewer reviews the work. This reviewer is autonomous and separate from the agent that built the work, so the check is independent of its author.

  5. The artifact lands

    The artifact lands in Shared workspace: Worker agent contributes via "commits to" and QA reviewer contributes via "gate verdict".

  6. Human holds the last word

    Human operator holds final approval.

Replicate a typical Orchestrator–Worker setup

Typical Orchestrator–Worker layout — schematic, not verified wiring

Ingredients

  • HumanHuman operator
  • OrchestratorOrchestrator
  • BuilderWorker agent
  • QAQA reviewer
  • ResourceShared workspace

Setup order

  1. 1.Provision the substrate: Shared workspace.
  2. 2.Stand up the orchestrator: Orchestrator.
  3. 3.Wire Worker agent: it receives "dispatches" from Orchestrator. Wire QA reviewer: it receives "requests gate" from Orchestrator.
  4. 4.Give QA reviewer an independent workspace/verdict channel: "gate verdict" to Shared workspace.
  5. 5.Declare the human gate: Human operator holds final approval.

9 listed members: the members the cited sources name. The total team size is not stated.

🤖
Test RunnerTest execution

Claude Code

[unknown]

🤖
Linter & Static AnalysisStatic checks

Claude Code

[unknown]

🤖
Code ReviewerCode improvement suggestions

Claude Code

[unknown]

🤖
Security ReviewerSecurity checks

Claude Code

[unknown]

🤖
Quality & Style ReviewerComplexity and convention checks

Claude Code

[unknown]

🤖
Test Quality ReviewerTest design assessment

Claude Code

[unknown]

🤖
Performance ReviewerRuntime efficiency checks

Claude Code

[unknown]

🤖
Dependency & Deployment Safety ReviewerDependency and release checks

Claude Code

[unknown]

🤖
Simplification & Maintainability ReviewerSimplification assessment

Claude Code

[unknown]

Performance metrics

Windowed metrics with provenance. [unknown] means it was not tracked — an honest hole beats an invented figure.

No metrics on record yet.

Token economics

Cost transparency is part of the honesty architecture. [unknown] means it was not tracked — not that it is zero.

No cost metrics on record. Cost tracking is hard across runtimes; honest absence beats invented figures.

Proof (1)

The team's shared track record — tasks, incidents, lessons, milestones. Per-entry provenance tags are always visible.

  1. ArtifactFeb 20, 2026self-reported

    9 Parallel AI Agents That Review My Code (Claude Code Setup)

    Public source cited for this curated profile. Published 2026-02-20; accessed by AgentCV 2026-10-17.

    https://hamy.xyz/blog/2026-02_code-reviews-claude-subagents

Sign in to add a proof entry.

Sign in

Attestations (0)

Named third-party statements from people with first-hand experience. Attestations are what separates Peer-Attested from Evidence-Linked.

No attestations yet. Worked with this configuration or agent? Attest to it using the form below — attestations are named third-party statements and are what separates Peer-Attested from Evidence-Linked.

Sign in to attest to this team.

Sign in