| name | code-review |
| description | Review code changes for security, performance, and correctness. Trigger with a PR URL or diff, "review this before I merge", "is this code safe?", or when checking a change for N+1 queries, injection risks, missing edge cases, or error handling gaps. |
| argument-hint | <PR URL, diff, or file path> |
/code-review
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Review code changes with a structured lens on security, performance, correctness, and maintainability.
Usage
/code-review <PR URL or file path>
Review the provided code changes: @$1
If no specific file or URL is provided, ask what to review.
How It Works
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CODE REVIEW │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ STANDALONE (always works) │
│ ✓ Paste a diff, PR URL, or point to files │
│ ✓ Security audit (OWASP top 10, injection, auth) │
│ ✓ Performance review (N+1, memory leaks, complexity) │
│ ✓ Correctness (edge cases, error handling, race conditions) │
│ ✓ Style (naming, structure, readability) │
│ ✓ Actionable suggestions with code examples │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ SUPERCHARGED (when you connect your tools) │
│ + Source control: Pull PR diff automatically │
│ + Project tracker: Link findings to tickets │
│ + Knowledge base: Check against team coding standards │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Review Dimensions
Security
- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
- Authentication and authorization flaws
- Secrets or credentials in code
- Insecure deserialization
- Path traversal
- SSRF
Performance
- N+1 queries
- Unnecessary memory allocations
- Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths)
- Missing database indexes
- Unbounded queries or loops
- Resource leaks
Correctness
- Edge cases (empty input, null, overflow)
- Race conditions and concurrency issues
- Error handling and propagation
- Off-by-one errors
- Type safety
Maintainability
- Naming clarity
- Single responsibility
- Duplication
- Test coverage
- Documentation for non-obvious logic
Output
## Code Review: [PR title or file]
### Summary
[1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall quality]
### Critical Issues
| # | File | Line | Issue | Severity |
|---|------|------|-------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | 🔴 Critical |
### Suggestions
| # | File | Line | Suggestion | Category |
|---|------|------|------------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | Performance |
### What Looks Good
- [Positive observations]
### Verdict
[Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]
If Connectors Available
If ~~source control is connected:
- Pull the PR diff automatically from the URL
- Check CI status and test results
If ~~project tracker is connected:
- Link findings to related tickets
- Verify the PR addresses the stated requirements
If ~~knowledge base is connected:
- Check changes against team coding standards and style guides
Tips
- Provide context — "This is a hot path" or "This handles PII" helps me focus.
- Specify concerns — "Focus on security" narrows the review.
- Include tests — I'll check test coverage and quality too.
