| name | code-review-standards |
| description | Code review checklist, severity definitions, and document templates. Load when performing code reviews or defining review criteria. |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"author":"groupzer0","version":"1.0"} |
Code Review Standards
Systematic approach to code review. Use this skill when:
- Performing code reviews
- Defining review criteria for a project
- Understanding severity levels for findings
- Creating code review documents
Review Focus Areas
Use this checklist when reviewing implementation code:
| Category | What to Review |
|---|
| Architecture Alignment | Does implementation match Architect's design? Follows system-architecture.md patterns? |
| SOLID Principles | SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP violations (load engineering-standards for detection patterns) |
| DRY/YAGNI/KISS | Duplication, speculative generalization, over-complexity |
| TDD Compliance | TDD Compliance table present in implementation doc? All rows show test-first? |
| Code Smells | Long Method, Large Class, Feature Envy, etc. (see engineering-standards) |
| Documentation & Comments | Appropriate inline comments explaining "why" (not "what"), function docstrings, module-level docs, complex logic explained |
| Naming & Clarity | Self-documenting names, appropriate abstractions, readable code |
| Error Handling | Defensive coding, graceful failures, appropriate exceptions |
| Security Quick Scan | Obvious vulnerabilities (injection, exposed secrets, hardcoded creds) |
| Performance | Obvious inefficiencies, N+1 patterns, memory leaks |
| Observability | Appropriate logging, telemetry for debugging |
Severity Levels
| Severity | Definition | Action |
|---|
| CRITICAL | Security vulnerability, data loss risk, architectural violation | REJECT - must fix |
| HIGH | Anti-pattern, significant maintainability issue, missing tests | REJECT - must fix |
| MEDIUM | Code smell, minor design issue, unclear code | Fix recommended, may approve with comments |
| LOW | Style preference, minor optimization opportunity | Note for future, approve |
| INFO | Observation, suggestion for improvement | FYI only |
When to Reject
- Any CRITICAL finding → REJECT
- Any HIGH finding → REJECT
- 3+ MEDIUM findings in same file → Consider REJECT
- Pattern of MEDIUM findings across files → Consider REJECT
Finding Format
When documenting findings, use this format:
**[SEVERITY] [Category]**: [Brief title]
- **Location**: `path/to/file.py:L42-L55`
- **Issue**: [What's wrong and why it matters]
- **Recommendation**: [Specific fix suggestion]
Example:
**[HIGH] Documentation**: Missing docstrings on public API
- **Location**: `src/api/handlers.py:L15-L45`
- **Issue**: Public functions `create_user()` and `delete_user()` lack docstrings. Future maintainers won't understand expected inputs/outputs.
- **Recommendation**: Add Google-style docstrings with Args, Returns, and Raises sections.
Code Review Document Template
Create in agent-output/code-review/ matching plan name:
# Code Review: [Plan Name]
**Plan Reference**: `agent-output/planning/[plan-name].md`
**Implementation Reference**: `agent-output/implementation/[plan-name]-implementation.md`
**Date**: [date]
**Reviewer**: Code Reviewer
## Changelog
| Date | Agent Handoff | Request | Summary |
|------|---------------|---------|---------|
| YYYY-MM-DD | [Who handed off] | [What was requested] | [Brief summary] |
## Architecture Alignment
**System Architecture Reference**: `agent-output/architecture/system-architecture.md`
**Alignment Status**: ALIGNED / MINOR_DEVIATIONS / MAJOR_DEVIATIONS
[Assessment of how implementation aligns with architectural decisions]
## TDD Compliance Check
**TDD Table Present**: Yes / No
**All Rows Complete**: Yes / No
**Concerns**: [Any issues with TDD compliance]
## Findings
### Critical
[List of critical findings, or "None"]
### High
[List of high findings, or "None"]
### Medium
[List of medium findings, or "None"]
### Low/Info
[List of low/info findings, or "None"]
## Positive Observations
[Acknowledge good patterns, well-written code, or improvements]
## Verdict
**Status**: APPROVED / APPROVED_WITH_COMMENTS / REJECTED
**Rationale**: [Brief explanation]
## Required Actions
[If rejected: specific list of fixes required]
[If approved with comments: optional improvements]
## Next Steps
[Handoff to Implementer for fixes / Handoff to QA for testing]
Review Best Practices
- Be constructive: Explain WHY something is an issue, not just THAT it's an issue
- Be specific: File paths, line numbers, code snippets
- Provide solutions: Concrete fix suggestions, not just criticism
- Acknowledge good work: Note positive patterns when you see them
- Prioritize: Focus on impactful issues, not nitpicks
- Context matters: Consider the plan's constraints and timeline
