code-review-expert

name	code-review-expert
version	1.2.0
description	Expert code review of current git changes with a senior engineer lens. Detects SOLID violations, security risks, and proposes actionable improvements.

Code Review Expert

Overview

Perform a structured review of the current git changes with focus on SOLID, architecture, removal candidates, and security risks. Default to review-only output unless the user asks to implement changes.

Atmos Review Session Integration

When the prompt contains a <review-agent-run> block, the session may target either a workspace (isolated git worktree) or a project (the project's main checkout). The reviewer flow is target-agnostic — it only needs the session, current_revision_guid, and run GUIDs from the block — but respect the target kind if you need to read repo state (target kind is visible in the output of atmos review session-show --session <session_guid>).

Use the run/session metadata to create one inline comment per concrete finding:

atmos review create-comment \
  --session <session_guid> \
  --revision <current_revision_guid> \
  --file <path> \
  --side new \
  --start-line <line> \
  --end-line <line> \
  --title "<short title>" \
  --run <run_guid> \
  --body-stdin <<'EOF'
Severity: P1
Issue: ...
Suggestion: ...
EOF

Prefer --body-stdin (or --body-file <path>) for multi-line bodies; --body "..." is only for short single-line text. After the review is complete, call:

atmos review set-status --run <run_guid> succeeded --summary-stdin <<'EOF'
<one-paragraph summary>
EOF

If the run cannot be completed, call atmos review set-status --run <run_guid> failed --message "<reason>".

For the full command surface (session discovery, comment reading, run lifecycle, body-input conventions, and workspace vs project semantics), see references/atmos-review-cli.md.

Severity Levels

Level	Name	Description	Action
P0	Critical	Security vulnerability, data loss risk, correctness bug	Must block merge
P1	High	Logic error, significant SOLID violation, performance regression	Should fix before merge
P2	Medium	Code smell, maintainability concern, minor SOLID violation	Fix in this PR or create follow-up
P3	Low	Style, naming, minor suggestion	Optional improvement

Workflow

1) Preflight context

• Use git status -sb, git diff --stat, and git diff to scope changes.
• If needed, use rg or grep to find related modules, usages, and contracts.
• Identify entry points, ownership boundaries, and critical paths (auth, payments, data writes, network).

Edge cases:

• No changes: If git diff is empty, inform user and ask if they want to review staged changes or a specific commit range.
• Large diff (>500 lines): Summarize by file first, then review in batches by module/feature area.
• Mixed concerns: Group findings by logical feature, not just file order.

2) SOLID + architecture smells

• Load references/solid-checklist.md for specific prompts.
• Look for:
  • SRP: Overloaded modules with unrelated responsibilities.
  • OCP: Frequent edits to add behavior instead of extension points.
  • LSP: Subclasses that break expectations or require type checks.
  • ISP: Wide interfaces with unused methods.
  • DIP: High-level logic tied to low-level implementations.
• When you propose a refactor, explain why it improves cohesion/coupling and outline a minimal, safe split.
• If refactor is non-trivial, propose an incremental plan instead of a large rewrite.

3) Removal candidates + iteration plan

• Load references/removal-plan.md for template.
• Identify code that is unused, redundant, or feature-flagged off.
• Distinguish safe delete now vs defer with plan.
• Provide a follow-up plan with concrete steps and checkpoints (tests/metrics).

4) Security and reliability scan

• Load references/security-checklist.md for coverage.
• Check for:
  • XSS, injection (SQL/NoSQL/command), SSRF, path traversal
  • AuthZ/AuthN gaps, missing tenancy checks
  • Secret leakage or API keys in logs/env/files
  • Rate limits, unbounded loops, CPU/memory hotspots
  • Unsafe deserialization, weak crypto, insecure defaults
  • Race conditions: concurrent access, check-then-act, TOCTOU, missing locks
• Call out both exploitability and impact.

5) Code quality scan

• Load references/code-quality-checklist.md for coverage.
• Check for:
  • Error handling: swallowed exceptions, overly broad catch, missing error handling, async errors
  • Performance: N+1 queries, CPU-intensive ops in hot paths, missing cache, unbounded memory
  • Boundary conditions: null/undefined handling, empty collections, numeric boundaries, off-by-one
• Flag issues that may cause silent failures or production incidents.

6) Output format

Structure your review as follows:

Traceability frontmatter: When this review is run inside an Atmos review session, the prompt will include a ready-to-copy YAML frontmatter block (under the key atmos_review). If you write the review to a Markdown report file, write that block verbatim as the very first lines of the file, before the ## Code Review Summary heading. Do not edit, reformat, or omit any field. When there is no session context, omit the frontmatter.

Example of the frontmatter the prompt will supply:

---
atmos_review:
  session_guid: "<guid>"
  run_guid: "<guid>"
  base_revision_guid: "<guid>"
  current_revision_guid: "<guid>"
  skill_id: "code-review-expert"
  generated_at: "<ISO-8601 UTC>"
---

## Code Review Summary

| Entry | Details |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Files Reviewed** | X files, Y lines changed |
| **Overall Assessment** | **APPROVE** \| **REQUEST_CHANGES** \| **COMMENT** |

---

## Findings

### P0 - Critical
(none or list)

### P1 - High
- **[file:line]** Brief title
  - Description of issue
  - Suggested fix

### P2 - Medium
...

### P3 - Low
...

---

## Removal/Iteration Plan
(if applicable)

## Additional Suggestions
(optional improvements, not blocking)

Inline comments: Use this format for file-specific findings:

::code-comment{file="path/to/file.ts" line="42" severity="P1"}
Description of the issue and suggested fix.
::

Clean review: If no issues found, explicitly state:

• What was checked
• Any areas not covered (e.g., "Did not verify database migrations")
• Residual risks or recommended follow-up tests

7) Next steps confirmation

After presenting findings, ask user how to proceed:

---

## Next Steps

I found X issues (P0: _, P1: _, P2: _, P3: _).

**How would you like to proceed?**

1. **Fix all** - I'll implement all suggested fixes
2. **Fix P0/P1 only** - Address critical and high priority issues
3. **Fix specific items** - Tell me which issues to fix
4. **No changes** - Review complete, no implementation needed

Please choose an option or provide specific instructions.

Important: Do NOT implement any changes until user explicitly confirms. This is a review-first workflow.

Resources

references/

File	Purpose
solid-checklist.md	SOLID smell prompts and refactor heuristics
security-checklist.md	Web/app security and runtime risk checklist
code-quality-checklist.md	Error handling, performance, boundary conditions
removal-plan.md	Template for deletion candidates and follow-up plan
atmos-review-cli.md	Shared Atmos review CLI reference (symlinked from atmos-review-fix)