---

name: code-review description: Use when the user asks to review code or a pull request - performs focused review checking for obvious defects only, provides minimal feedback with clear approval/rejection format

Code Review

Overview

Perform focused code reviews that identify only obvious defects. Keep feedback minimal and actionable.

Core principle: Catch critical issues, not nitpicks. Approve when code is solid, reject with clear priorities when it's not.

When to Use

• User asks to review a pull request
• User asks to review code changes
• User requests code feedback
• User asks "can you review this?"

User Intent

Listen for explicit submission intent:

• "Review this code and submit comment" → Prepare to submit after showing review
• "Review and comment on PR #123" → Prepare to submit after showing review
• "Review this" or "Can you review?" → Show review, ask before submitting

Default behavior: Show review first, then ask user if they want to submit it.

Review Process

1. Retrieve the Code

Use available tools to get the PR or code:

• GitHub tools for PRs (get_pull_request, get_file_contents)

• Git tools for local changes (git diff, git show)

• Read files directly if paths provided

• Prefer provider-specific tools (MCP or other integrated tools) over invoking the CLI. For example, use the GitHub MCP tool when available before using the gh/GitHub CLI; use the CLI only as a fallback.

2. Focus on Obvious Defects

Check for:

• Security vulnerabilities - SQL injection, XSS, hardcoded secrets, unsafe dependencies
• Correctness bugs - Logic errors, off-by-one errors, null/undefined handling, race conditions
• Breaking changes - API changes, removed functionality, incompatible modifications
• Critical performance issues - N+1 queries, memory leaks, blocking operations
• Test coverage gaps - Missing tests for new logic, untested edge cases

Ignore:

• Style preferences (unless blocking)
• Minor refactoring opportunities
• Documentation suggestions (unless critical)
• Theoretical optimizations
• Personal preferences

3. Provide Verdict

Always show the review to the user first.

If Approved

Provide brief explanation, then end with the approval format:

CopyThe changes look solid because [brief reason].

Approved - [3-5 words summarizing why]

Examples:

• "Approved - Clean implementation, well tested"
• "Approved - Straightforward bug fix"
• "Approved - Good error handling"
• "Approved - Simple refactor, no issues"

If Not Approved

Provide prioritized list of issues:

CopyCannot approve due to:

1. [Critical issue with specific location]
2. [Important issue with specific location]
3. [Blocking issue with specific location]

[Additional context if needed]

Prioritization:

1. Security vulnerabilities (always first)
2. Correctness bugs
3. Breaking changes
4. Critical performance issues
5. Missing test coverage for new logic

4. Ask About Submission

After showing the review:

• If user indicated "submit" or "comment": Ask "Should I submit this review comment to the PR?"
• If user didn't specify: Ask "Would you like me to submit this review as a comment on the PR?"

Only submit if user confirms.

If user declines, treat the review as complete (they can copy/paste or edit before submitting themselves).

When submitting reviews or comments, prefer provider-specific tools (for example, the GitHub MCP tool) over using the CLI; use the CLI only if provider tools are unavailable.

Review Examples

Example 1: Simple Approval

CopyReviewed the authentication fix in auth.ts. The null check properly handles 
the edge case and the test coverage is good.

Approved - Solid fix, well tested

Example 2: Security Issue

CopyCannot approve due to:

1. SQL injection vulnerability in getUserData() (line 45) - uses string 
   concatenation instead of parameterized query
2. Missing input validation on email parameter (line 23) - accepts 
   unsanitized user input

These need to be fixed before merging.

Example 3: Logic Bug

CopyCannot approve due to:

1. Off-by-one error in pagination logic (line 102) - should be `i < limit` 
   not `i <= limit`
2. Missing null check before accessing user.profile (line 87) - will crash 
   if profile is undefined

Fix these issues and re-request review.

Guidelines

Be specific:

• Reference line numbers or function names
• Explain the actual problem
• Don't be vague ("this could be better")

Be minimal:

• Only mention obvious issues
• Skip style nitpicks unless they cause bugs
• Don't suggest refactors unless code is broken

Be clear:

• Use numbered lists for multiple issues
• Put most critical issues first
• State exactly what needs fixing

Be helpful:

• Explain why something is a problem
• Suggest fix if it's not obvious
• Keep tone constructive

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• Don't approve with caveats ("Approved but you should...") - either approve or reject
• Don't list non-blocking suggestions in rejection - only blocking issues
• Don't review style unless it causes bugs
• Don't request tests for trivial changes
• Don't mention theoretical edge cases without clear impact

Quick Reference

Final Rule

CopyObvious defects → Reject with priorities
No obvious defects → Approve with brief reason

Keep it simple. Catch the important stuff.