| name | code-review |
| description | Toolkit for performing structured code reviews. Covers identifying bugs, security issues, performance problems, and style violations. Use when asked to review code changes, pull requests, or individual files. |
| metadata | {"author":"AGNTCY Contributors","version":"1.0.0"} |
Code Review
Perform structured code reviews that identify bugs, security issues, performance problems,
and style violations in source code.
Decision Tree: Choosing Your Approach
Review request → Is it a full PR / diff?
├─ Yes → Read the diff, then review file-by-file
│ ├─ Security issues → Flag as critical
│ ├─ Bugs / logic errors → Flag as high
│ └─ Style / naming → Flag as suggestion
│
└─ No (single file) → Read the file in context
├─ Check imports and dependencies
├─ Verify error handling
└─ Look for common anti-patterns
Review Checklist
- Correctness — Does the code do what it claims?
- Security — Are inputs validated? Are secrets handled safely?
- Performance — Are there unnecessary allocations, N+1 queries, or unbounded loops?
- Readability — Is the intent clear without excessive comments?
- Tests — Are edge cases covered?
Examples
- "Review this Go function for potential nil pointer dereferences"
- "Check this PR diff for SQL injection vulnerabilities"
- "Suggest improvements for readability in this Python module"
Guidelines
- Prefer actionable feedback over vague suggestions
- Always explain why something is a problem, not just what
- Group findings by severity: critical, high, medium, suggestion
- When suggesting a fix, show a concrete code snippet