microservices-code-review

name	microservices-code-review
enabled	true
description	Use when performing microservices code review — distributed systems code review template covering service resilience, API contract compliance, observability instrumentation, data consistency patterns, and inter-service communication. Provides a systematic review framework for microservices changes including circuit breakers, retries, idempotency, and distributed tracing.
required_connections	[{"prefix":"github","label":"GitHub"}]
config_fields	[{"key":"repository","label":"Repository","required":true,"placeholder":"e.g., org/order-service"},{"key":"pr_number","label":"PR Number","required":true,"placeholder":"e.g., 1234"},{"key":"service_name","label":"Service Name","required":true,"placeholder":"e.g., order-service"}]
features	["CODE_REVIEW"]

Microservices Code Review Skill

Review PR #{{ pr_number }} in {{ repository }} for service {{ service_name }}.

Workflow

Phase 1 — Resilience Patterns

RESILIENCE CHECK
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Circuit breakers:
    [ ] External service calls wrapped with circuit breaker
    [ ] Fallback behavior defined
    [ ] Circuit breaker thresholds configured
    [ ] Half-open state tested
[ ] Retries:
    [ ] Retry logic with exponential backoff
    [ ] Maximum retry count bounded
    [ ] Jitter added to prevent thundering herd
    [ ] Non-idempotent operations not retried
[ ] Timeouts:
    [ ] All external calls have timeouts
    [ ] Timeout values appropriate (not too long)
    [ ] Cascading timeout budgets considered
[ ] Bulkheads:
    [ ] Thread pools / connection pools isolated per dependency
    [ ] Resource limits prevent cascade failures

Phase 2 — API Contracts

CONTRACT COMPLIANCE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Contract changes:
    [ ] API schema changes backward-compatible
    [ ] Consumer-driven contract tests pass
    [ ] Schema registry updated (Avro, Protobuf)
    [ ] Event schema versioned
[ ] Communication patterns:
    [ ] Sync vs async chosen appropriately
    [ ] Message format documented
    [ ] Dead letter queue configured for failed messages
    [ ] Idempotency keys for message processing

Phase 3 — Observability

OBSERVABILITY CHECK
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Distributed tracing:
    [ ] Trace context propagated across service calls
    [ ] Spans created for significant operations
    [ ] Trace IDs in log entries
[ ] Metrics:
    [ ] RED metrics (Rate, Errors, Duration) instrumented
    [ ] Custom business metrics where relevant
    [ ] SLI metrics aligned with SLOs
[ ] Logging:
    [ ] Structured logging format (JSON)
    [ ] Correlation IDs in all log entries
    [ ] Appropriate log levels (no INFO spam)
    [ ] Sensitive data not logged
[ ] Health checks:
    [ ] Liveness probe endpoint
    [ ] Readiness probe endpoint
    [ ] Dependency health reported

Phase 4 — Data Consistency

DATA PATTERNS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Consistency:
    [ ] Saga pattern used for distributed transactions
    [ ] Compensating transactions defined for rollback
    [ ] Eventual consistency acceptable for use case
    [ ] Idempotent operations for at-least-once delivery
[ ] Data ownership:
    [ ] Service owns its data (no shared database)
    [ ] Data access via APIs (not direct DB queries)
    [ ] Event sourcing / CQRS used correctly (if applicable)

Counter-Rationalizations

Shortcut	Counter	Why
"We can skip some steps for this case"	Adapt the workflow steps, don't skip them	Skipped steps are where incidents and oversights originate
"The user seems to already know what to do"	Complete all workflow phases with the user	The workflow catches blind spots that experience alone misses
"This is a minor case, full process is overkill"	Scale the process down, don't turn it off	Minor cases become major when unstructured; the process scales, not disappears
"I'll fill in the details later"	Complete each section before moving on	Deferred details are forgotten; real-time capture is more accurate
"The template output isn't necessary"	Always produce the structured output format	Structured output enables comparison, audit trails, and handoff to other teams

Output Format

Produce a microservices review report with:

1. Resilience assessment (fault tolerance score)
2. Contract compatibility (breaking changes detected)
3. Observability coverage (tracing, metrics, logging gaps)
4. Data consistency risks
5. Deployment safety recommendations