code-review-expert

name	code-review-expert
description	Expert code review of current git changes. SOLID, security, performance, error handling, boundary conditions. Senior engineer lens.
short_description	Git diff code review
keywords	code review, git diff, solid, security, performance, refactor, lint, quality
category	coding
metadata	{"nanobot":{"emoji":"🔍","requires":{"bins":["git"]}}}

Code Review Expert

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.

Reference files: Use read_file to load checklists. The references are in the references/ subdirectory of this skill. From the skill location (e.g. .../code-review-expert/SKILL.md), load .../code-review-expert/references/solid-checklist.md, security-checklist.md, code-quality-checklist.md, removal-plan.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, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP violations.
• When proposing 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.

4) Security and reliability scan

• Load references/security-checklist.md for coverage.
• Check for: XSS, injection, SSRF, path traversal, AuthZ/AuthN gaps, secret leakage, race conditions, etc.
• Call out both exploitability and impact.

5) Code quality scan

• Load references/code-quality-checklist.md for coverage.
• Check for: Error handling, performance (N+1, caching), boundary conditions (null, empty, off-by-one).
• Flag issues that may cause silent failures or production incidents.

6) Output format

Structure your review as:

## Code Review Summary

**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)

Clean review: If no issues found, explicitly state what was checked and any residual risks.

7) Next steps confirmation

After presenting findings, ask user how to proceed. Do NOT implement any changes until user explicitly confirms. This is a review-first workflow.