diff --git a/.opencode/commands/review.md b/.opencode/commands/review.md
index cf79aef174..3e6f59cee5 100644
--- a/.opencode/commands/review.md
+++ b/.opencode/commands/review.md
@@ -4,14 +4,76 @@ Act as a senior software engineer and perform a thorough code review.
 
 1. Load the **`code-review-and-quality`** skill — it defines the five axes, core principles (DRY, KISS, YAGNI), severity taxonomy, and output format.
 2. Determine the diff or code to review from the provided context.
-3. Read the diff and the surrounding context for each changed file.
-4. Review across all five axes: correctness, readability, architecture, security, performance.
-5. Produce the review using the **Review Output** format from the skill (Summary → Critical/High → Other Findings → Refactoring → Testing Recommendations → Positive Observations → Final Verdict).
-6. For each finding: state the severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Suggestion), identify the file and line, describe failure circumstances, and propose a concrete fix.
-7. Do not invent problems. Every finding must be real and actionable.
+3. **Skip generated files, lockfile-only changes, and unrelated modifications** unless they introduce security risks.
+4. Read the diff and the surrounding context for each changed file.
+5. Review across all five axes: correctness, readability, architecture, security, performance.
+6. Produce the review using this structure:
+   - **Summary**: One-paragraph overview of the change and its impact
+   - **Critical/High Findings**: Blockers that must be fixed (with file:line, severity, description, and proposed fix)
+   - **Other Findings**: Medium/Low issues and suggestions
+   - **Testing Recommendations**: Missing test coverage or test quality issues
+   - **Positive Observations**: What was done well (brief, specific)
+   - **Verdict**: Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion
+7. For each finding:
+   - State the severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Suggestion)
+   - Identify the file and line
+   - Describe failure circumstances
+   - **For Critical/High**: Provide a concrete fix with a code snippet showing the corrected code
+   - **For Medium/Low**: Describe the fix clearly; code snippet optional
+    - If multiple approaches exist, briefly note trade-offs
+8. **Perform a second review pass if the change is complex:**
+   - **Complex indicators**: Critical/High findings, multiple files (>5), architectural changes, security-sensitive code, >300 lines changed
+   - **Skip for simple changes**: Typo fixes, formatting, small bug fixes (<50 lines), single-file changes with no findings
+   - Second pass checks:
+     - Validate severity assignments: Are Critical/High findings truly blockers?
+     - Catch missed issues: Edge cases, error paths, test gaps overlooked in first pass
+     - Remove false positives: Discard findings that aren't real issues
+     - Verify fixes: Are the proposed solutions actually correct and complete?
 
-Do not modify any code and do not create a commit — this command only reviews.
+## Strong Rules
+
+1. Do not invent problems. Every finding must be real and actionable.
+2. Do not modify any code and do not create a commit — this command only reviews.
+3. Be specific and constructive. "This could be better" is not helpful — explain why and how.
+4. Prioritize by impact. One structural issue outweighs ten nits.
+5. If tests are missing for new functionality, flag it as High severity.
 
 ## Context
 
 $ARGUMENTS
+
+## Expected Format
+
+```
+## Review Summary
+[1-2 sentences on what the change does and overall assessment]
+
+## Critical/High Findings
+### [Severity] file.ts:123
+**Issue**: [Description of the problem]
+**Impact**: [What could go wrong]
+**Fix**:
+```[language]
+// Current code
+[problematic code]
+
+// Fixed code
+[corrected code]
+```
+[Optional: note trade-offs if multiple approaches exist]
+
+## Other Findings
+### [Severity] file.ts:456
+**Issue**: [Description]
+**Fix**: [Clear description; code snippet optional]
+
+## Testing Recommendations
+[List specific test cases that should be added]
+
+## Positive Observations
+[2-3 specific things done well]
+
+## Verdict
+[Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]
+[If Request Changes: list the must-fix items]
+```