| name | code-graph-review |
| description | Perform a graph-assisted code review using blast-radius analysis. Token-efficient delta review that only reads changed code and its impact zone. Requires code-review-graph MCP server. |
| risk | safe |
| source | adapted from code-review-graph/skills/review-delta + review-pr |
| tags | ["code-graph","code-review","blast-radius","token-efficient"] |
Graph-Assisted Code Review
When to Use
- User asks to "review changes", "review my code", "review this PR"
- Before merging a branch or submitting code
- When you need to understand the full impact of recent changes
Prerequisite: code-review-graph MCP server must be configured and graph must be built.
Instructions
Step 1: Ensure Graph is Current
build_or_update_graph_tool()
This runs an incremental update (fast, <2 seconds for most projects).
Step 2: Get Review Context
get_review_context_tool()
This auto-detects changed files from git diff and returns:
- Changed files and nodes
- Impacted files and nodes (blast radius)
- Source code snippets for changed areas
- Review guidance (test gaps, wide-impact warnings, inheritance concerns)
Step 3: Assess Risk Level
From the review context, categorize:
| Risk Level | Criteria | Action |
|---|
| Low | ≤3 files changed, blast radius ≤5 files, no d=1 critical callers | Standard review |
| Medium | 4-10 files changed, blast radius 6-20, some d=1 callers | Detailed review + test check |
| High | >10 files changed, blast radius >20, or d=1 callers in critical flows | Full review + warn user |
Step 4: Review Each Changed File
For each changed file from the context:
- Review the source snippet for correctness, style, and bugs
- Check impacted callers — do d=1 callers need signature updates?
query_graph_tool(pattern="callers_of", target="<changed_function>", detail_level="minimal")
- Verify test coverage:
query_graph_tool(pattern="tests_for", target="<changed_function>", detail_level="minimal")
- Flag untested changed functions as 🟠 Major findings
Step 5: Generate Structured Review
## Code Review Summary
### Overview
<1-3 sentence summary of changes>
### Risk Assessment
- **Overall risk**: Low / Medium / High
- **Changed files**: [count]
- **Blast radius**: [count] files, [count] functions impacted
- **Test coverage**: [covered]/[total] changed functions tested
### Findings
[SEVERITY] file:line — Description
Impact: [blast radius data]
Suggestion: [concrete fix]
### Missing Tests
- <function_name> in <file> — no test coverage found
### Recommendations
1. <actionable suggestion>
2. <actionable suggestion>
Token Efficiency Notes
- This workflow uses ~5x fewer tokens than reading all changed files manually
- The graph provides structural context (who calls what) without reading source
- Only read full source for files flagged as high-risk in the blast radius
