| name | code-review-quality |
| description | Conduct context-driven code reviews focusing on quality, testability, and maintainability. Use when reviewing code, providing feedback, or establishing review practices. |
| category | development-practices |
| priority | high |
| tokenEstimate | 900 |
| agents | ["qe-quality-analyzer","qe-security-scanner","qe-performance-tester","qe-coverage-analyzer"] |
| implementation_status | optimized |
| optimization_version | 1 |
| last_optimized | "2025-12-02T00:00:00.000Z" |
| dependencies | [] |
| quick_reference_card | true |
| tags | ["code-review","feedback","quality","testability","maintainability","pr-review"] |
| trust_tier | 2 |
| validation | {"schema_path":"schemas/output.json","validator_path":"scripts/validate-config.json"} |
Code Review Quality
<default_to_action>
When reviewing code or establishing review practices:
- PRIORITIZE feedback: 🔴 Blocker (must fix) → 🟡 Major → 🟢 Minor → 💡 Suggestion
- FOCUS on: Bugs, security, testability, maintainability (not style preferences)
- ASK questions over commands: "Have you considered...?" > "Change this to..."
- PROVIDE context: Why this matters, not just what to change
- LIMIT scope: Review < 400 lines at a time for effectiveness
Quick Review Checklist:
- Logic: Does it work correctly? Edge cases handled?
- Security: Input validation? Auth checks? Injection risks?
- Testability: Can this be tested? Is it tested?
- Maintainability: Clear naming? Single responsibility? DRY?
- Performance: O(n²) loops? N+1 queries? Memory leaks?
Critical Success Factors:
- Review the code, not the person
- Catching bugs > nitpicking style
- Fast feedback (< 24h) > thorough feedback
</default_to_action>
Quick Reference Card
When to Use
- PR code reviews
- Pair programming feedback
- Establishing team review standards
- Mentoring developers
Feedback Priority Levels
| Level | Icon | Meaning | Action |
|---|
| Blocker | 🔴 | Bug/security/crash | Must fix before merge |
| Major | 🟡 | Logic issue/test gap | Should fix before merge |
| Minor | 🟢 | Style/naming | Nice to fix |
| Suggestion | 💡 | Alternative approach | Consider for future |
Review Scope Limits
| Lines Changed | Recommendation |
|---|
| < 200 | Single review session |
| 200-400 | Review in chunks |
| > 400 | Request PR split |
What to Focus On
| ✅ Review | ❌ Skip |
|---|
| Logic correctness | Formatting (use linter) |
| Security risks | Naming preferences |
| Test coverage | Architecture debates |
| Performance issues | Style opinions |
| Error handling | Trivial changes |
Feedback Templates
Blocker (Must Fix)
🔴 **BLOCKER: SQL Injection Risk**
This query is vulnerable to SQL injection:
```javascript
db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`)
Fix: Use parameterized queries:
db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?', [userId])
Why: User input directly in SQL allows attackers to execute arbitrary queries.
### Major (Should Fix)
```markdown
🟡 **MAJOR: Missing Error Handling**
What happens if `fetchUser()` throws? The error bubbles up unhandled.
**Suggestion:** Add try/catch with appropriate error response:
```javascript
try {
const user = await fetchUser(id);
return user;
} catch (error) {
logger.error('Failed to fetch user', { id, error });
throw new NotFoundError('User not found');
}
### Minor (Nice to Fix)
```markdown
🟢 **minor:** Variable name could be clearer
`d` doesn't convey meaning. Consider `daysSinceLastLogin`.
Suggestion (Consider)
💡 **suggestion:** Consider extracting this to a helper
This validation logic appears in 3 places. A `validateEmail()` helper would reduce duplication. Not blocking, but might be worth a follow-up PR.
Review Questions to Ask
Logic
- What happens when X is null/empty/negative?
- Is there a race condition here?
- What if the API call fails?
Security
- Is user input validated/sanitized?
- Are auth checks in place?
- Any secrets or PII exposed?
Testability
- How would you test this?
- Are dependencies injectable?
- Is there a test for the happy path? Edge cases?
Maintainability
- Will the next developer understand this?
- Is this doing too many things?
- Is there duplication we could reduce?
Minimum Findings Enforcement
Reviews must meet a minimum weighted finding score of 3.0 (CRITICAL=3, HIGH=2, MEDIUM=1, LOW=0.5, INFORMATIONAL=0.25). If the initial review falls short, run the qe-devils-advocate agent as a meta-reviewer to find additional observations. Every review should have at least 3 actionable observations.
Agent-Assisted Reviews
await Task("Code Review", {
prNumber: 123,
checks: ['security', 'performance', 'testability', 'maintainability'],
feedbackLevels: ['blocker', 'major', 'minor'],
autoApprove: { maxBlockers: 0, maxMajor: 2 }
}, "qe-quality-analyzer");
await Task("Security Review", {
prFiles: changedFiles,
scanTypes: ['injection', 'auth', 'secrets', 'dependencies']
}, "qe-security-scanner");
await Task("Coverage Review", {
prNumber: 123,
requireNewTests: true,
minCoverageDelta: 0
}, "qe-coverage-analyzer");
Agent Coordination Hints
Memory Namespace
aqe/code-review/
├── review-history/* - Past review decisions
├── patterns/* - Common issues by team/repo
├── feedback-templates/* - Reusable feedback
└── metrics/* - Review turnaround time
Fleet Coordination
const reviewFleet = await FleetManager.coordinate({
strategy: 'code-review',
agents: [
'qe-quality-analyzer',
'qe-security-scanner',
'qe-performance-tester',
'qe-coverage-analyzer'
],
topology: 'parallel'
});
Review Etiquette
| ✅ Do | ❌ Don't |
|---|
| "Have you considered...?" | "This is wrong" |
| Explain why it matters | Just say "fix this" |
| Acknowledge good code | Only point out negatives |
| Suggest, don't demand | Be condescending |
| Review < 400 lines | Review 2000 lines at once |
Related Skills
Remember
Prioritize feedback: 🔴 Blocker → 🟡 Major → 🟢 Minor → 💡 Suggestion. Focus on bugs and security, not style. Ask questions, don't command. Review < 400 lines at a time. Fast feedback (< 24h) beats thorough feedback.
With Agents: Agents automate security, performance, and coverage checks, freeing human reviewers to focus on logic and design. Use agents for consistent, fast initial review.
