rails-review-flow

name	rails-review-flow
license	MIT
description	Multi-pass Rails code review workflow that identifies bugs, security vulnerabilities, and architectural issues; assigns severity levels (Critical, Suggestion, Nice-to-have); and generates actionable review comments with a mandatory re-review loop for Critical findings. Use for full PR review workflows, multi-pass security or architecture audits, or implementing and verifying responses to review feedback. Trigger: review this PR, full code review, multi-pass review, audit security vulnerabilities, review architecture, respond to review feedback, implement review fixes.
keywords	rails, review, audit, security, architecture, workflow, pr, feedback

Rails Review Flow — Complete Review Workflow

Orchestrates systematic code review with optional deep dives for security/architecture and response handling.

Workflow Phases

Phase 1: Systematic Review

Load primary review skill:

1. rails-code-review — Systematic Rails PR review

Concrete checklist per changed file:

• Verify before_action callbacks match route constraints and cover all sensitive actions
• Check every .save, .update, .destroy call has error handling or a ! bang with rescue
• Confirm strong parameters whitelist only the required attributes — no permit!
• Identify any where/find calls inside loops (N+1 risk) and flag for extraction
• Confirm authorize (or equivalent policy check) is called before rendering any resource
• Validate model associations use appropriate dependent: options to prevent orphaned records
• Check callbacks (before_save, after_create, etc.) for side-effects that cross domain boundaries
• Confirm test coverage exists for the changed logic path

Output format per file: [CRITICAL|SUGGESTION|NICE-TO-HAVE] <file>:<line> — <finding>

Example Critical finding comment:

[CRITICAL] app/controllers/orders_controller.rb:42 — Missing authorisation check;
  any authenticated user can access another user's order. Add `authorize @order`
  before rendering.

Example Suggestion comment:

[SUGGESTION] app/models/order.rb:17 — `Order.where(user: current_user)` called
  inside a loop; extract to a scoped query to avoid N+1.

Decision Gate — Security Check:

• Security concerns found? → Proceed to Phase 2 (Security)
• No security concerns → Skip to Phase 2 (Architecture check)

---

Phase 2: Deep Dive (Optional)

Branch A — Security Review (if triggered):

• skills/code-quality/rails-security-review — Deep security audit
  • Auth & session management
  • Authorization & IDOR
  • Input validation & SQL injection
  • Output encoding & XSS
  • Secrets handling

Decision Gate — Architecture Check:

• Architecture issues found? → Proceed to Architecture Review
• No architecture issues → Skip to Phase 3

Branch B — Architecture Review (if triggered):

• skills/code-quality/rails-architecture-review — Structural review
  • Boundary recommendations
  • Extraction suggestions
  • Coupling assessment

---

Phase 3: Respond

Decision Gate — Findings Assessment:

Finding Level	Action
None/minor	Proceed to merge
Critical	Must fix before merge
Suggestion	Fix in this PR or ticket separately

If Critical findings:

1. skills/code-quality/rails-review-response — Evaluate and implement fixes
2. Validation checkpoint — For each Critical item, confirm a corresponding code change exists before marking resolved:
   • List each Critical finding by ID
   • For each: identify the changed file and line, verify the fix addresses the root cause
   • Only mark resolved when the change is present and correct
3. Re-review mandatory — Return to Phase 1 (rails-code-review)
4. Repeat until all Critical items are resolved

Proceed-to-merge summary format:

## Review Complete — Approved for Merge
- Critical findings: 0 remaining
- Suggestions addressed: <n> fixed, <n> ticketed as <TICKET-IDs>
- Files reviewed: <list>
- Re-review cycles: <n>

If Suggestions only:

1. Fix accepted items (one at a time)
2. Document deferred items as tickets
3. Proceed to merge

---

Severity Levels

Level	Definition	Action Required
Critical	Security vulnerability, data loss, production risk	Fix before merge
Suggestion	Improvement opportunity, tech debt	Fix now or ticket
Nice to have	Optional enhancement	Does not block

---

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

• Performative agreement: "LGTM! Will address in follow-up" without actually fixing
• Skipping re-review: Critical fixes must be re-reviewed
• Scope creep: Don't turn review into feature work — ticket separately