| name | backend-review |
| description | Review the backend implementation — security, contract adherence, correctness, backward compatibility, rate-limiting, performance/scaling, migrations, test gaps, observability. Read-only; writes a review artifact. Front door for /backend-review. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Task, Write |
| tags | ["sdlc","review","backend"] |
backend-review
Review the backend implementation (diff/branch) against the contract and LLD. Read-only —
never edit code; reviewers return evidence and recommendations, humans decide fixes.
Steps
- Scope the diff — identify changed files, new endpoints, migrations, and their blast radius.
- Line the diff up against the contract and the LLD — read the inputs your instructions point to.
- Deep, evidence-backed pass over every dimension in the checklist below. For a more
independent read you MAY spawn a fresh read-only sub-agent (via the Task tool) that follows
this same skill — do this where your harness supports it (e.g. Claude Code or Codex). Otherwise
perform the pass inline. Either way: read-only — never edit code. You are the
read-only backstop; nothing is skipped.
- Consolidate findings by severity; decide
blocking.
- Write the report and return the verdict.
What the review must cover (checklist — independent of the external skill)
- Security — authz on every endpoint (no client trust); input validation & bounds;
injection (SQL/command/template); output encoding; secrets in code/logs; PII handling;
safe deserialization; SSRF.
- Contract adherence — endpoints/DTOs/error shape/status codes match exactly; no
undocumented divergence; breaking changes flagged, not silent.
- Correctness & concurrency — logic matches spec; transactions; races/isolation;
idempotency for mutating/retryable ops.
- Backward compatibility — additive; no removed/retyped fields or tightened validation
without version + migration; defaults for new fields.
- Rate limiting & abuse — limits/quotas; page-size & payload caps; timeouts; 429 semantics.
- Performance & scaling — no N+1/unbounded queries; indexes for new paths; caching/pooling;
behavior under load.
- Data & migrations — expand→migrate→contract; reversible; no online long locks; backfill.
- Test gaps — branches, error paths, and acceptance-criteria edge cases tested;
assertions verify behavior; not happy-path only.
- Observability — structured logs (no PII), metrics/traces on new paths, error taxonomy.
Edge cases / smells to watch for
- Endpoint added without an authz check or without validation on a field.
- Error paths returning 200, or leaking stack traces / internal messages.
- A migration with no rollback, or a breaking column change done in one step.
- Retry without idempotency (double side effects); missing rate limit on a new public route.
- N+1 introduced in a loop; unbounded list endpoint; missing index for a new query.
- Tests that assert nothing meaningful, or only cover the happy path.
External skill (provision — review method)
If the requesting-code-review skill (from the Superpowers pack) is installed, apply its
discipline first; it must not narrow the checklist above. If it is not installed, review
inline per the checklist.
Findings format (what the review returns — evidence mandatory)
summary: <one paragraph verdict + top risks>
findings:
- severity: blocker | major | minor | suggestion
area: security | contract | correctness | backward-compat | rate-limiting | performance | scaling | data-migrations | test-gap | observability
file: <path:line>
evidence: <quoted code / test / contract clause, or the gap>
recommendation: <smallest safe change>
safe_for_ai_fix: <true|false>
blocking: <true if any blocker/major remains>
Decide & output
Sort blocker → major → minor → suggestion; blocking = true if any blocker/major remains.
Auth/permission or contract changes are never safe_for_ai_fix — escalate. Write the report
to the artifact path your instructions specify (the orchestrator passes it). Running
standalone? write to a sensible path you choose and tell the user where.
Output contract
Return review_path, blocking (true/false), and summary (one line: the headline
verdict and the count of blocking findings).
