code-review

name	code-review
description	Use when reviewing code for quality, bugs, security, and maintainability
tags	["review","quality","workflow"]

Code Review Workflow

A comprehensive approach to reviewing code for quality, correctness, and maintainability.

Review Phases

Phase 1: Understand Context

Before looking at code:

1. Read the PR/commit description: What is this change trying to accomplish?
2. Check related issues/tickets: What was the original requirement?
3. Review the scope: Is this the right size for one change?
4. Identify the risk level: High-risk areas need more scrutiny

Phase 2: Correctness Review

Does the code do what it's supposed to?

1. Logic validation: Does the algorithm correctly solve the problem?
2. Edge cases: Are boundary conditions handled?
3. Error handling: Are failures handled gracefully?
4. Input validation: Is untrusted input validated?

Questions to ask:

• What happens with null/empty input?
• What happens at min/max values?
• What happens on network/disk errors?

Phase 3: Security Review

Look for common vulnerabilities:

1. Injection attacks: SQL injection, command injection, XSS
2. Authentication/Authorization: Are access controls correct?
3. Sensitive data: Are secrets, PII, credentials protected?
4. Dependencies: Are there known vulnerabilities?

Red flags:

• User input in SQL/commands without sanitization
• Hardcoded secrets or credentials
• Missing authentication checks
• Overly permissive CORS/access controls

Phase 4: Performance Review

Will this code perform well?

1. Algorithmic complexity: O(n) vs O(n^2) vs O(n!)
2. Database queries: N+1 problems, missing indices
3. Memory usage: Large allocations, memory leaks
4. Caching: Unnecessary repeated work

Questions to ask:

• What happens with 10x/100x the data?
• Are there database queries in loops?
• Is expensive work cached when appropriate?

Phase 5: Maintainability Review

Will this code be easy to work with?

1. Readability: Is the code self-explanatory?
2. Naming: Are variables/functions named clearly?
3. Structure: Is the code well-organized?
4. Duplication: Is there unnecessary repetition?
5. Tests: Are there adequate tests?

Questions to ask:

• Would a new team member understand this?
• If I see this in 6 months, will I know what it does?
• Are the tests testing behavior, not implementation?

Giving Feedback

Be Constructive

• Focus on the code, not the person
• Explain "why", not just "what"
• Suggest alternatives when criticizing
• Acknowledge what's done well

Categorize Comments

• Blocker: Must fix before merge
• Suggestion: Would improve but not required
• Question: Need clarification to understand
• Nitpick: Style preference, optional

Example Feedback

Bad: "This is wrong" Good: "This loop doesn't handle empty arrays - it will throw on line 15. Consider adding an early return: if (items.length === 0) return []"

Multi-Agent Review Strategy

For comprehensive review, delegate to specialized reviewers:

1. claude-code: Correctness, maintainability, tests
2. gemini-cli: Research, documentation, API design
3. codex-cli: Security audit, sandbox testing

Combine findings for complete coverage.