---

name: code-review description: Code review checklist and best practices for thorough quality assessment. triggers:

• review
• code review
• audit
• quality check

---

Code Review Skill

Overview

This skill provides a systematic approach to code review, ensuring thorough quality assessment while maintaining constructive feedback practices.

Review Checklist

Code Quality

• Code is readable and self-documenting
• Functions are small and focused (< 50 lines)
• Variable names are descriptive
• No unnecessary complexity
• DRY principle followed
• Consistent formatting

Logic & Correctness

• Logic is sound and correct
• Edge cases handled
• Boundary conditions checked
• No off-by-one errors
• Return values are correct
• State mutations are intentional

Error Handling

• All error cases handled
• Error messages are helpful
• No silent failures
• Async errors are caught
• Errors don't leak sensitive info

Security (OWASP Top 10)

• No hardcoded credentials
• Input is validated/sanitized
• No injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, command)
• Authentication/authorization proper
• Sensitive data protected

Performance

• No obvious inefficiencies
• Appropriate data structures
• No N+1 query patterns
• Unnecessary operations avoided
• Memory leaks prevented

Testing

• Tests exist for new code
• Tests cover happy path
• Tests cover edge cases
• Tests cover error cases
• Tests are maintainable

Documentation

• Complex logic explained
• Public APIs documented
• No outdated comments
• README updated if needed

Review Process

Step 1: Understand Context

1. Read the PR description
2. Understand the purpose
3. Check related issues/tickets
4. Review the overall approach

Step 2: High-Level Review

1. Does the approach make sense?
2. Are there architectural concerns?
3. Is it the right solution?
4. Are there simpler alternatives?

Step 3: Detailed Review

1. Go through each file
2. Check against checklist
3. Note issues with severity
4. Provide specific feedback

Step 4: Summarize

1. Categorize findings
2. Prioritize issues
3. Acknowledge good work
4. Provide clear recommendations

Severity Levels

Feedback Guidelines

Good Feedback

Copy# Constructive
"This function is getting complex. Consider extracting the validation
logic into a separate `validateInput()` function for better readability."

# Specific with solution
"Line 45: This SQL query is vulnerable to injection. Consider using
parameterized queries:
`const result = await db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?', [userId]);`"

# Educational
"Nice use of early returns here! For consistency, consider applying
the same pattern in the `processOrder` function above."

Bad Feedback

Copy# Vague
"This could be better."

# No solution
"This is wrong."

# Harsh
"This is terrible code. Did you even test this?"

# Nitpicking
"Use single quotes instead of double quotes."
(When both are acceptable in the project)

Review Report Template

Copy# Code Review Report

**PR/Commit**: [Reference]
**Reviewer**: [Name]
**Date**: [Date]

## Summary

| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Blocker | X |
| Critical | X |
| Major | X |
| Minor | X |

**Verdict**: Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion

## Findings

### Blockers
[None / List items]

### Critical
[None / List items]

### Major
[None / List items]

### Minor
[None / List items]

## What's Good
- [Positive observation 1]
- [Positive observation 2]

## Recommendations
1. [Action item]
2. [Action item]

Common Issues to Catch

Security

• Hardcoded secrets
• SQL injection
• XSS vulnerabilities
• Missing authentication
• Insecure direct object references

Performance

• N+1 database queries
• Missing indexes
• Large synchronous operations
• Memory leaks
• Unnecessary API calls

Reliability

• Missing error handling
• Race conditions
• Undefined behavior on edge cases
• No input validation
• Silent failures

Maintainability

• Code duplication
• God functions (too long)
• Unclear naming
• Missing documentation
• Complex conditionals

Self-Review Before PR

Authors should check:

1. Tests pass locally
2. Code is formatted
3. No debug code left
4. Self-reviewed the diff
5. PR description is clear
6. Related issues linked