skill-code-review

name	skill-code-review
description	Perform thorough, constructive code reviews focusing on correctness, security, maintainability, and best practices

skill-code-review

Code Review Skill Instructions

Purpose

Conduct comprehensive code reviews that improve code quality, catch bugs early, ensure security, and promote team learning through constructive feedback.

When to Use

• Pull request reviews
• Pre-merge code inspections
• Security audits
• Refactoring validation
• New feature implementation reviews

---

Review Process

1. Understand Context First

• Read the PR/change description and linked issues
• Understand the intent and scope of the change
• Check if tests and documentation are included
• Review the overall architecture impact

2. Review Checklist

✅ Correctness

• Does the code do what it's supposed to do?
• Are edge cases handled properly?
• Is the logic correct and complete?
• Are there any off-by-one errors, null pointer issues, or race conditions?

🔒 Security

• Input validation and sanitization
• No hardcoded secrets, API keys, or credentials
• Proper authentication and authorization checks
• SQL injection, XSS, CSRF protection
• Secure handling of sensitive data
• Dependencies free of known vulnerabilities

🏗️ Architecture & Design

• Follows SOLID principles
• Appropriate separation of concerns
• No unnecessary coupling between components
• Consistent with existing patterns in the codebase
• Scalability considerations addressed

📖 Readability & Maintainability

• Clear, descriptive naming (variables, functions, classes)
• Functions are small and do one thing well
• No magic numbers or strings (use constants)
• Complex logic is commented or self-documenting
• No dead code or commented-out code blocks

⚡ Performance

• No N+1 queries or unnecessary database calls
• Efficient algorithms and data structures
• Proper caching where appropriate
• No memory leaks or resource exhaustion risks
• Async operations used correctly

🧪 Testing

• Unit tests cover new functionality
• Edge cases and error paths tested
• Tests are readable and maintainable
• No flaky or brittle tests
• Integration tests where appropriate

📝 Documentation

• Public APIs documented
• Complex business logic explained
• README updated if needed
• Breaking changes documented

---

Feedback Guidelines

Be Constructive

❌ "This code is bad"
✅ "Consider extracting this into a separate function for better testability"

Be Specific

❌ "Fix the naming"
✅ "Rename `data` to `userProfile` to clarify its purpose"

Explain the Why

❌ "Don't use var"
✅ "Use `const` instead of `var` to prevent accidental reassignment and improve code clarity"

Categorize Feedback Severity

Prefix	Meaning	Action Required
🚨 BLOCKER	Critical issue, must fix	Cannot merge
⚠️ WARNING	Should fix, potential problem	Strongly recommended
💡 SUGGESTION	Improvement opportunity	Optional
❓ QUESTION	Clarification needed	Please explain
👍 PRAISE	Great work!	Keep it up

---

Comment Templates

Security Issue

🚨 **BLOCKER - Security**: User input is not sanitized before being used in the SQL query. 
This creates a SQL injection vulnerability.

**Suggestion**: Use parameterized queries or an ORM to safely handle user input.

Performance Concern

⚠️ **WARNING - Performance**: This loop makes a database call on each iteration, 
resulting in N+1 queries.

**Suggestion**: Batch the queries or use eager loading to fetch all data upfront.

Code Quality Suggestion

💡 **SUGGESTION**: This function is 80 lines long with multiple responsibilities.

Consider splitting into:
- `validateInput()` - Input validation
- `processData()` - Core business logic  
- `formatResponse()` - Response formatting

Positive Feedback

👍 **PRAISE**: Excellent error handling here! The fallback mechanism and 
detailed logging will make debugging much easier.

---

Review Output Format

Structure your review as follows:

## Code Review Summary

**Overall Assessment**: ✅ Approved | ⚠️ Needs Changes | 🚨 Request Changes

### Overview
Brief summary of what was reviewed and overall impressions.

### Critical Issues (Must Fix)
- Issue 1 with location and fix suggestion
- Issue 2 with location and fix suggestion

### Recommendations (Should Fix)
- Recommendation 1
- Recommendation 2

### Suggestions (Nice to Have)
- Suggestion 1
- Suggestion 2

### Positive Highlights
- What was done well

### Questions
- Any clarifications needed

---

Best Practices

1. Review in small batches - Keep PRs small (<400 lines) for effective review
2. Take your time - Don't rush; bugs missed in review are expensive later
3. Be respectful - Review the code, not the person
4. Assume good intent - Authors did their best with available information
5. Offer alternatives - Don't just criticize; provide solutions
6. Learn together - Reviews are learning opportunities for everyone
7. Follow up - Verify fixes address the concerns raised

---

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

• ❌ Nitpicking style issues (use linters instead)
• ❌ Rewriting someone's code in your style
• ❌ Blocking PRs for subjective preferences
• ❌ Reviewing without understanding context
• ❌ Being vague or unconstructive
• ❌ Ignoring positive aspects of the code