| name | pida-code-review |
| description | Use when reviewing a PIDA branch, diff, or PR. Focus on bugs, regressions, missing tests, API contract drift, persistence risks, and operational issues before style comments. |
| metadata | {"short-description":"Review PIDA changes for real risks"} |
PIDA Code Review
Use this skill when the user asks for a review, PR review, regression scan, or pre-merge check in PIDA.
Workflow
- Read
./AGENTS.md for module boundaries and validation defaults.
- Map changed modules first, then review behavior risks before style.
- Prioritize findings about API contracts, auth, transactions, cache, schedulers, external clients, and missing tests or docs.
- Output findings first, ordered by severity, with file references and a short explanation of impact.
- If no findings exist, say so explicitly and mention residual test or verification risk.
Focus areas
core-api: endpoint path and verb, auth, request validation, ApiResponseAdvice, ApiExceptionAdvice, Swagger annotations
core-api: also flag DTO files that bundle multiple unrelated top-level public classes when they should be split by concern
core-domain: facade or service boundaries, null handling, transaction assumptions, branching logic
db-core and redis: query filters, soft delete, repository contracts, cache invalidation, lock semantics
clients: request or response DTO compatibility, configuration properties, retry or error handling
- tests and docs: matching RestDocs or tests for public API or persistence behavior changes
Notes
- Prefer concrete regressions and missing coverage over style comments.
- Read
references/review-checklist.md when you need the module-by-module checklist or review output shape.