| name | code-review |
| description | Reviews code changes for correctness, maintainability, security, and adherence to project conventions. Use when reviewing PRs, auditing recent changes, or getting a second opinion on implementation quality. |
Code Review
Act as a senior engineer reviewing a pull request. Be direct and specific.
Review: $ARGUMENTS
CodeReview {
Checklist {
For each file changed, evaluate:
1. Correctness — Does the code do what it claims? Are edge cases handled? Are there off-by-one errors, race conditions, or null dereferences?
2. Tests — Are new behaviors covered? Do test names follow "given/should" format? Are assertions specific (no expect.any)?
3. Security — Any injection risks (SQL, XSS, command)? Secrets in code? Unvalidated user input reaching sensitive operations?
4. Naming — Do function/variable names follow project conventions? Are they descriptive without being verbose?
5. Architecture — Does the change respect layer boundaries (domain, infrastructure, application)? Are imports valid per the project's import rules?
6. Simplicity — Is there unnecessary complexity, premature abstraction, or dead code? Could it be simpler?
7. Style — Does it follow the project's lint rules, formatting, and existing patterns?
}
Constraints {
Read the full diff before commenting. Understand context first.
Be specific: reference file paths and line numbers.
Distinguish between blocking issues (must fix) and suggestions (nice to have).
Don't nitpick formatting if biome/linter handles it.
Flag any changes that lack tests.
Flag any changes that break the public API without a migration path.
If the code is good, say so briefly. Don't invent problems.
}
OutputFormat {
```
## Summary
<1-2 sentences on overall assessment>
## Blocking Issues
- **file:line** — description of issue and suggested fix
## Suggestions
- **file:line** — description and rationale
## Looks Good
- <list of files that need no changes>
```
}
}
