[BUG] Plugin Redundancies/Conflicts
Resolved 💬 5 comments Opened Nov 23, 2025 by Morriz Closed Feb 28, 2026
Preflight Checklist
- [x] I have searched existing issues and this hasn't been reported yet
- [x] This is a single bug report (please file separate reports for different bugs)
- [x] I am using the latest version of Claude Code
What's Wrong?
The included commands and agents in the your plugin repo are conflicting/overlapping/redundant, potentially because of an oversight of the poor coordination between code owners.
What Should Happen?
A build process should detect this automatically and flag the problems.
Error Messages/Logs
It was quite a lot but the code review came out strongly
Code Review (4 overlapping mechanisms)
- Skill: code-review
- Command: /code-review:code-review
- Agent: pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer
- Agent: feature-dev:code-reviewer
I already read the first three. Let me compare them:
code-review skill:
- Educational/protocol guide
- Three practices: receiving feedback, requesting reviews, verification gates
- References to use code-reviewer subagent
- Not executable itself - teaches when/how to use review
/code-review:code-review command:
- Automated PR review workflow
- Launches 5 parallel Sonnet agents
- Checks CLAUDE.md compliance, bugs, history, previous PRs, comments
- Confidence scoring (0-100), filters <80
- Posts review comment via gh
pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer agent:
- Opus model
- Reviews code against CLAUDE.md
- Confidence scoring ≥80
- For proactive review after writing code
feature-dev:code-reviewer agent:
- Sonnet model
- Same purpose as pr-review-toolkit version
- Almost identical system prompt
...
Code Review Analysis
1. code-review skill (user space):
- Type: Educational guide/protocol
- Purpose: Teaches WHEN and HOW to use code review
- Not executable - references other tools
2. /code-review:code-review command (plugin):
- Type: Automated PR review workflow
- Purpose: Complex multi-agent PR review on GitHub
- Scope: Pull requests specifically
- Uses: 5 parallel agents, CLAUDE.md checks, gh CLI
3. pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer agent:
- Type: Opus agent for proactive review
- Purpose: Review code after writing
- Scope: Local changes (unstaged git diff)
- Model: Opus
- Tools: None (relies on context)
4. feature-dev:code-reviewer agent:
- Type: Sonnet agent for proactive review
- Purpose: Identical to #3
- Scope: Local changes (unstaged git diff)
- Model: Sonnet
- Tools: Full toolkit (Glob, Grep, Read, etc.)
---
The Redundancy
#3 and #4 are 95% identical:
- Same system prompt (word-for-word)
- Same purpose (review code after writing)
- Same scope (unstaged changes)
- Same confidence threshold (≥80)
- Only differences:
- Model: Opus vs Sonnet
- Tools: None vs Full toolkit
- Color: Green vs Red
- Description verbosity
These are duplicate agents in different plugins.
---
Recommendation
Delete feature-dev:code-reviewer, keep pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer
Why keep pr-review-toolkit version:
- ✅ Part of focused PR review toolkit
- ✅ Uses Opus (higher quality for review)
- ✅ More detailed description with examples
- ✅ Clearer triggering conditions
Why delete feature-dev version:
- ❌ Exact duplicate functionality
- ❌ Uses Sonnet (faster but lower quality)
- ❌ Has tools it doesn't need (the prompt doesn't use them)
- ❌ Unclear why feature-dev plugin needs its own reviewer
Non-redundant items:
- ✅ Keep code-review skill (teaches protocol)
- ✅ Keep /code-review:code-review command (automated PR workflow)
- ✅ Keep pr-review-toolkit:code-reviewer agent (proactive review)
Should I delete feature-dev:code-reviewer?
Steps to Reproduce
Ask Claude Code the following question after enabling all the marketplace plugins in a new project:
which plugins, skills or commands that you just been given are conflicting or redundant?. ultrathink
Claude Model
Sonnet (default)
Is this a regression?
I don't know
Last Working Version
_No response_
Claude Code Version
2.0.50
Platform
Anthropic API
Operating System
macOS
Terminal/Shell
iTerm2
Additional Information
_No response_
This issue has 5 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗