code-review

# Security-Focused Code Review Review current git changes with a focus on security issues and code quality. Parse the user's input to determine scope: - `$code-review` → review all changes (staged + unstaged) - `$code-review staged` → only staged changes - `$code-review unstaged` → only unstaged changes ## Steps 1. Determine scope from user input (default: all) - staged: `git diff --staged` - unstaged: `git diff` - all: both `git diff` and `git diff --staged` 2. Run `git status` for the full picture 3. Read the full content of each changed file for context (not just the diff) 4. Analyze for: ### Security Issues (Critical) - **Injection**: SQL injection, command injection, XSS, SSTI, LDAP injection - **Hardcoded secrets**: API keys, passwords, tokens, connection strings, private keys - **Path traversal**: unsanitized file path inputs, `../` patterns - **Insecure deserialization**: pickle, yaml.load without SafeLoader, json with custom decoders - **Weak crypto**: MD5/SHA1 for security, ECB mode, hardcoded IVs, insufficient key lengths - **SSRF**: unvalidated URLs in HTTP requests, DNS rebinding potential - **Race conditions**: TOCTOU, shared state without locks, async hazards - **Auth issues**: missing auth checks, privilege escalation, IDOR patterns - **CORS misconfiguration**: overly permissive Access-Control-Allow-Origin, credentials with wildcard - **JWT issues**: algorithm confusion (none/HS256 vs RS256), missing expiration, weak secrets ### Logic & Correctness - Off-by-one errors, boundary conditions - Unhandled error cases that could crash or leak info - Resource leaks (unclosed files, connections, sockets) - Incorrect type handling ### Code Quality - Overly complex logic that could hide bugs - Missing input validation at trust boundaries - Inconsistent error handling patterns 5. Present findings by severity: - CRITICAL: Exploitable security vulnerabilities - HIGH: Security weaknesses, data exposure risks - MEDIUM: Logic bugs, error handling gaps - LOW: Style issues, minor improvements 6. Each finding includes: file:line, issue, why it matters, suggested fix 7. Summary: total by severity, verdict (safe to merge / needs fixes / needs rework)