code-review-structure

name	code-review-structure
description	This skill should be used when performing a "code review", "PR review", "review pull request", or evaluating implementation quality. Provides a two-stage process: Stage 1 checks spec compliance (does it do what was designed?), Stage 2 checks quality (is the code good?). Includes C/I/M severity classification. Do not use for design reviews or requirements reviews.

Code Review Structure

A two-stage code review process that prevents wasted effort and improves review quality. Stage 1 validates spec compliance before Stage 2 examines code quality.

Why Two Stages?

Problem with unstructured review:

• Reviewer spends time on code quality
• Later discovers PR doesn't match requirements
• All quality feedback is wasted (needs redesign)

Two-stage solution:

1. Spec compliance first — Does this implement what was designed?
2. Quality second — Is the implementation good?

If Stage 1 fails, stop and address spec issues before quality review.

Stage 1: Spec Compliance

Goal: Verify PR matches requirements and design.

Compliance Checklist

Requirements Alignment:

• PR addresses requirements from requirements.md
• Success criteria from requirements.md are met
• Scope matches (no out-of-scope additions)
• Edge cases from requirements are handled

Design Alignment:

• Implements design from design.md
• Architecture decisions followed (ADRs respected)
• API contracts match design
• Integration points match design

Test Coverage Alignment:

• Tests match testing strategy from design.md
• Unit tests for business logic
• Integration tests for component interactions

Deliverable Completeness:

• All tasks from ticket are complete
• No "TODO" or "FIXME" for in-scope work
• Documentation updated (if applicable)

Spec Compliance Review Output

If compliant:

## Stage 1: Spec Compliance ✅

- Requirements: Aligned with specified criteria
- Design: Follows architecture from design.md
- Testing: All test types from strategy present
- Completeness: All ticket tasks addressed

Proceeding to Stage 2 (Quality Review).

If non-compliant:

## Stage 1: Spec Compliance ❌

Non-compliance issues (must fix before quality review):

1. Missing functionality: Requirement calls for version
   validation, but code only checks format, not values
2. Design mismatch: Design specified using existing Error
   type, but PR creates new error types
3. Test gap: Design called for integration tests, but
   only unit tests present

Action required: Address spec issues before re-requesting
review. Quality review will begin once spec compliance is
achieved.

Key principle: Don't proceed to Stage 2 if Stage 1 fails. Spec compliance issues are blocking.

Stage 2: Code Quality

Goal: Verify implementation is maintainable, secure, and follows best practices.

Only start Stage 2 after Stage 1 passes.

Quality Review Areas

Code Structure:

• Function/module organization
• Naming clarity
• Code duplication
• Complexity (cyclomatic complexity, nesting depth)

Error Handling:

• Errors are informative
• Error paths are tested
• No silent failures

Security:

• Input validation
• SQL injection prevention
• Authentication/authorization checks
• Secrets not hardcoded

Performance:

• No obvious inefficiencies (N+1 queries, redundant loops)
• Large data handling appropriate
• Resource cleanup (file handles, connections)

Maintainability:

• Comments where logic isn't self-evident
• Consistent style with codebase
• No commented-out code
• Dependencies justified

Severity Classification

Assign severity to each quality issue for clear prioritization.

Critical (C) — Must Fix Before Merge

Criteria: Security vulnerability, data loss risk, or production-breaking bug.

Examples:

• SQL injection vulnerability
• Hardcoded secrets
• Race condition in critical path
• Unhandled error that crashes service

Action: Block merge until fixed.

Important (I) — Should Fix, May Block Merge

Criteria: Significant maintainability issue, performance problem, or deviation from established patterns.

Examples:

• Poor error messages (confuses users/developers)
• Missing tests for error paths
• Inefficient algorithm (N^2 when N is expected large)
• Ignoring established patterns

Action: Fix before merge, or create follow-up ticket if truly can't fix now (rare).

Minor (M) — Nice to Have, Non-Blocking

Criteria: Cosmetic issue, stylistic preference, or micro-optimization.

Examples:

• Variable naming could be slightly clearer
• Comment could be more detailed
• Function could be split (but isn't complex)
• Small code duplication (2-3 lines)

Action: Optional fix. Can address or defer. Doesn't block merge.

Quality Review Output

## Stage 2: Code Quality

### Critical Issues (Must Fix) - 0
None found.

### Important Issues (Should Fix) - 2

**I1: Missing error handling for API timeout**
Location: src/api/client.py:45
Severity: Important
Issue: HTTP client doesn't handle timeout, will hang
Recommendation: Add timeout, return clear error

**I2: Query in loop (N+1 problem)**
Location: src/handlers/list.py:78
Severity: Important
Issue: Fetches record for each item in loop
Recommendation: Fetch all records in single query

### Minor Issues (Nice to Have) - 1

**M1: Variable naming**
Location: src/utils/parse.py:12
Severity: Minor
Issue: Variable `x` could be named `manifest_version`
Recommendation: Rename for clarity (optional)

---

Overall: 2 Important issues block merge. Please address
before approval.

Review Workflow

Step 1: Read Context

Before reviewing code:

1. Read requirements.md (what we're building)
2. Read design.md (how we're building it)
3. Read ticket description (specific task)
4. Understand acceptance criteria

Step 2: Stage 1 Review (Spec Compliance)

Review order:

1. Check requirements coverage
2. Check design adherence
3. Check test strategy compliance
4. Check deliverable completeness

Decision point:

• Compliant → Proceed to Stage 2
• Non-compliant → Stop, request spec fixes, do NOT review quality

Step 3: Stage 2 Review (Quality)

Only if Stage 1 passed.

Review order:

1. Security (Critical issues)
2. Correctness (Critical/Important)
3. Error handling (Important)
4. Performance (Important)
5. Maintainability (Important/Minor)
6. Style (Minor)

Step 4: Provide Feedback

Use structured format:

## Code Review: {PR Title}

### Stage 1: Spec Compliance
[✅ Pass / ❌ Fail]
{Details}

### Stage 2: Code Quality
[Only if Stage 1 passed]

Critical: {count}
Important: {count}
Minor: {count}

{Detailed issues with severity labels}

---

Decision: [Approve / Request Changes]
Reason: {Why}

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Quality Review Before Spec Check

❌ Bad:
Review focuses on code style, variable names, function
structure. Near end: "Wait, this doesn't implement the
key requirement at all!" All prior feedback is wasted.

✅ Good:
First check: Does this match requirements and design?
If no: Stop, request spec fixes.
If yes: Then review code quality.

Severity Confusion

❌ Bad:
"Minor issue: SQL injection vulnerability"

✅ Good:
"CRITICAL: SQL injection vulnerability in user input
handling" (correct severity, blocks merge)

Integration with Forge Workflows

For code-reviewer Agent

When reviewing a PR:

1. Load context — Read requirements.md, design.md, ticket
2. Stage 1 check — Requirements, design, tests, completeness
3. If Stage 1 fails — Document non-compliance, request fixes, do NOT proceed to Stage 2
4. If Stage 1 passes — Proceed to Stage 2 quality review, classify by severity (C/I/M), provide structured feedback

For PR Authors (Developers)

Before requesting review:

Self-review Stage 1:

• I've addressed all requirements from requirements.md
• My implementation follows design from design.md
• Tests match testing strategy
• All ticket tasks complete

Self-review Stage 2:

• No security vulnerabilities
• Error handling is robust
• Code is readable and maintainable
• Performance is acceptable

Summary

Stage	Focus	Blocking?	Output
Stage 1	Spec compliance	Yes	✅ Pass / ❌ Fail
Stage 2	Code quality	Severity-dependent	C/I/M issues

Key principles:

1. Spec compliance before quality
2. Classify severity (Critical/Important/Minor)
3. Block merge on Critical issues
4. Provide structured feedback