ak-review

---

name: ak:review description: Review code with real engineering criteria — logic bugs, security vulnerabilities, and technical debt. Use when user says /review @file or /review to review current PR changes. argument-hint: [@file or leave empty for PR diff] context: fork agent: Explore allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob Bash(git *)

Skill: /review

Reviews code with real engineering criteria. Not just style — detects bugs, security issues, and technical debt.

Context

• Target: $ARGUMENTS
• PR diff (fallback if no file provided): !git diff main..HEAD
• Changed files: !git diff main..HEAD --name-only

When to use it

When the user writes /review @file or /review (reviews current PR changes).

Steps

1. Read the code to review:

   • If $ARGUMENTS contains a file path, read that file completely — ignore the PR diff.
   • If $ARGUMENTS is empty, use the PR diff already loaded above.

2. Review in this priority order:

🔴 Critical (blocks merge)

• Logic bugs that produce incorrect behavior
• Security vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, exposed data, auth bypass)
• Race conditions or concurrency issues
• Memory leaks or unreleased resources

🟡 Important (must be resolved before or as follow-up)

• Missing or incomplete error handling
• Unconsidered edge cases
• Performance: N+1 queries, unnecessary loops, avoidable re-renders
• Missing tests for critical logic

🔵 Suggestion (optional improvement)

• Unclear variable or function names
• Duplicated code that could be extracted
• Outdated or unnecessary comments
• Readability improvements

3. Output format:

## Review: [file name or PR]

### 🔴 Critical
- **Line X**: [problem description] → [fix suggestion]

### 🟡 Important
- **Line X**: [description]

### 🔵 Suggestions
- **Line X**: [description]

### ✅ What's good
[Mention 1-2 things done well. Balanced feedback is more effective.]

Rules

• Be specific: "line 42: this if never executes because..." is better than "there's a bug".
• Don't review style if a linter is configured — trust the tooling.
• If the file is very large (+500 lines), focus on new logic, not existing code.
• A review with 3 real criticals is worth more than 20 naming suggestions.