Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.
Code Review and Quality
Overview
Multi-dimensional code review with quality gates. Every change gets reviewed before merge — no exceptions. Review covers five axes: correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance.
The approval standard: Approve a change when it definitely improves overall code health, even if it isn't perfect. Perfect code doesn't exist — the goal is continuous improvement. Don't block a change because it isn't exactly how you would have written it. If it improves the codebase and follows the project's conventions, approve it.
When to Use
Before merging any PR or change
After completing a feature implementation
When another agent or model produced code you need to evaluate
When refactoring existing code
After any bug fix (review both the fix and the regression test)
The Five-Axis Review
Every review evaluates code across these dimensions:
1. Correctness
Does the code do what it claims to do?
Does it match the spec or task requirements?
Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values)?
Are error paths handled (not just the happy path)?
Does it pass all tests? Are the tests actually testing the right things?
Are there off-by-one errors, race conditions, or state inconsistencies?
2. Readability & Simplicity
Can another engineer (or agent) understand this code without the author explaining it?
Are names descriptive and consistent with project conventions? (No temp, data, result without context)
Is the control flow straightforward (avoid nested ternaries, deep callbacks)?
Is the code organized logically (related code grouped, clear module boundaries)?
Are there any "clever" tricks that should be simplified?
Could this be done in fewer lines? (1000 lines where 100 suffice is a failure)
Are abstractions earning their complexity? (Don't generalize until the third use case)
Would comments help clarify non-obvious intent? (But don't comment obvious code.)
Are there dead code artifacts: no-op variables (_unused), backwards-compat shims, or // removed comments?
3. Architecture
Does the change fit the system's design?
Does it follow existing patterns or introduce a new one? If new, is it justified?
Does it maintain clean module boundaries?
Is there code duplication that should be shared?
Are dependencies flowing in the right direction (no circular dependencies)?
Is the abstraction level appropriate (not over-engineered, not too coupled)?
4. Security
For detailed security guidance, see tgd-security-and-hardening. Does the change introduce vulnerabilities?
Is user input validated and sanitized?
Are secrets kept out of code, logs, and version control?
Is authentication/authorization checked where needed?
Are SQL queries parameterized (no string concatenation)?
Are outputs encoded to prevent XSS?
Are dependencies from trusted sources with no known vulnerabilities?
Is data from external sources (APIs, logs, user content, config files) treated as untrusted?
Are external data flows validated at system boundaries before use in logic or rendering?
5. Performance
For detailed profiling and optimization, see tgd-performance-optimization. Does the change introduce performance problems?
Any N+1 query patterns?
Any unbounded loops or unconstrained data fetching?
Any synchronous operations that should be async?
Any unnecessary re-renders in UI components?
Any missing pagination on list endpoints?
Any large objects created in hot paths?
Change Sizing
Small, focused changes are easier to review, faster to merge, and safer to deploy. Target these sizes:
~100 lines changed → Good. Reviewable in one sitting.
~300 lines changed → Acceptable if it's a single logical change.
~1000 lines changed → Too large. Split it.
What counts as "one change": A single self-contained modification that addresses one thing, includes related tests, and keeps the system functional after submission. One part of a feature — not the whole feature.
Splitting strategies when a change is too large:
Strategy
How
When
Stack
Submit a small change, start the next one based on it
Sequential dependencies
By file group
Separate changes for groups needing different reviewers
Cross-cutting concerns
Horizontal
Create shared code/stubs first, then consumers
Layered architecture
Vertical
Break into smaller full-stack slices of the feature
Feature work
When large changes are acceptable: Complete file deletions and automated refactoring where the reviewer only needs to verify intent, not every line.
Separate refactoring from feature work. A change that refactors existing code and adds new behavior is two changes — submit them separately. Small cleanups (variable renaming) can be included at reviewer discretion.
Change Descriptions
Every change needs a description that stands alone in version control history.
First line: Short, imperative, standalone. "Delete the FizzBuzz RPC" not "Deleting the FizzBuzz RPC." Must be informative enough that someone searching history can understand the change without reading the diff.
Body: What is changing and why. Include context, decisions, and reasoning not visible in the code itself. Link to bug numbers, benchmark results, or design docs where relevant. Acknowledge approach shortcomings when they exist.
Anti-patterns: "Fix bug," "Fix build," "Add patch," "Moving code from A to B," "Phase 1," "Add convenience functions."
Review Process
Step 1: Understand the Context
Before looking at code, understand the intent:
- What is this change trying to accomplish?
- What spec or task does it implement?
- What is the expected behavior change?
If .codegraph/ exists, run codegraph callers "<modified-function>" to verify the change doesn't miss any dependent code. Run codegraph affected <changed-files> to confirm all impacted tests are included. For large or unfamiliar changes, run the understand-diff skill to visualize the full blast radius before approving.
Step 2: Review the Tests First
Tests reveal intent and coverage:
- Do tests exist for the change?
- Do they test behavior (not implementation details)?
- Are edge cases covered?
- Do tests have descriptive names?
- Would the tests catch a regression if the code changed?
Step 3: Review the Implementation
Walk through the code with the five axes in mind:
For each file changed:
1. Correctness: Does this code do what the test says it should?
2. Readability: Can I understand this without help?
3. Architecture: Does this fit the system?
4. Security: Any vulnerabilities?
5. Performance: Any bottlenecks?
Step 4: Categorize Findings
Label every comment with its severity so the author knows what's required vs optional:
This is the ONE severity taxonomy for the review phase — REVIEW.md, the code-reviewer persona (agents/code-reviewer.md), and this skill all use it:
Prefix
Meaning
Author Action
Critical:
Blocks merge
Security vulnerability, data loss, broken functionality — must fix before merge
Author may ignore — formatting, style preferences, optional improvements
FYI:
Informational only
No action needed — context for future reference
This prevents authors from treating all feedback as mandatory and wasting time on optional suggestions.
Step 5: Verify the Verification
Check the author's verification story:
- What tests were run?
- Did the build pass?
- Was the change tested manually?
- Are there screenshots for UI changes?
- Is there a before/after comparison?
Multi-Model Review Pattern
Use different models for different review perspectives:
Model A writes the code
│
▼
Model B reviews for correctness and architecture
│
▼
Model A addresses the feedback
│
▼
Human makes the final call
This catches issues that a single model might miss — different models have different blind spots.
Example prompt for a review agent:
Review this code change for correctness, security, and adherence to
our project conventions. The spec says [X]. The change should [Y].
Flag any issues as Critical, Important, Nit, or FYI.
Dead Code Hygiene
After any refactoring or implementation change, check for orphaned code:
Identify code that is now unreachable or unused
List it explicitly
Ask before deleting: "Should I remove these now-unused elements: [list]?"
Don't leave dead code lying around — it confuses future readers and agents. But don't silently delete things you're not sure about. When in doubt, ask.
DEAD CODE IDENTIFIED:
- formatLegacyDate() in src/utils/date.ts — replaced by formatDate()
- OldTaskCard component in src/components/ — replaced by TaskCard
- LEGACY_API_URL constant in src/config.ts — no remaining references
→ Safe to remove these?
Review Speed
Slow reviews block entire teams. The cost of context-switching to review is less than the waiting cost imposed on others.
Respond within one business day — this is the maximum, not the target
Ideal cadence: Respond shortly after a review request arrives, unless deep in focused coding. A typical change should complete multiple review rounds in a single day
Prioritize fast individual responses over quick final approval. Quick feedback reduces frustration even if multiple rounds are needed
Large changes: Ask the author to split them rather than reviewing one massive changeset
Handling Disagreements
When resolving review disputes, apply this hierarchy:
Technical facts and data override opinions and preferences
Style guides are the absolute authority on style matters
Software design must be evaluated on engineering principles, not personal preference
Codebase consistency is acceptable if it doesn't degrade overall health
Don't accept "I'll clean it up later." Experience shows deferred cleanup rarely happens. Require cleanup before submission unless it's a genuine emergency. If surrounding issues can't be addressed in this change, require filing a bug with self-assignment.
Honesty in Review
When reviewing code — whether written by you, another agent, or a human:
Don't rubber-stamp. "LGTM" without evidence of review helps no one.
Don't soften real issues. "This might be a minor concern" when it's a bug that will hit production is dishonest.
Quantify problems when possible. "This N+1 query will add ~50ms per item in the list" is better than "this could be slow."
Push back on approaches with clear problems. Sycophancy is a failure mode in reviews. If the implementation has issues, say so directly and propose alternatives.
Accept override gracefully. If the author has full context and disagrees, defer to their judgment. Comment on code, not people — reframe personal critiques to focus on the code itself.
Dependency Discipline
Part of code review is dependency review:
Before adding any dependency:
Does the existing stack solve this? (Often it does.)
How large is the dependency? (Check bundle impact.)
Is it actively maintained? (Check last commit, open issues.)
Does it have known vulnerabilities? (npm audit)
What's the license? (Must be compatible with the project.)
Rule: Prefer standard library and existing utilities over new dependencies. Every dependency is a liability.
The Review Checklist
## Review: [PR/Change title]### Context- [ ] I understand what this change does and why
### Correctness- [ ] Change matches spec/task requirements
- [ ] Edge cases handled
- [ ] Error paths handled
- [ ] Tests cover the change adequately
### Readability- [ ] Names are clear and consistent
- [ ] Logic is straightforward
- [ ] No unnecessary complexity
### Architecture- [ ] Follows existing patterns
- [ ] No unnecessary coupling or dependencies
- [ ] Appropriate abstraction level
### Security- [ ] No secrets in code
- [ ] Input validated at boundaries
- [ ] No injection vulnerabilities
- [ ] Auth checks in place
- [ ] External data sources treated as untrusted
### Performance- [ ] No N+1 patterns
- [ ] No unbounded operations
- [ ] Pagination on list endpoints
### Verification- [ ] Tests pass
- [ ] Build succeeds
- [ ] Manual verification done (if applicable)
### Verdict- [ ] **Approve** — Ready to merge
- [ ] **Request changes** — Issues must be addressed
See Also
For detailed security review guidance, see references/security-checklist.md
For performance review checks, see references/performance-checklist.md
Embedded Tech Debt Filing (Jira Integration)
When code review identifies issues that are known but intentionally not fixed in the current cycle, track them:
Always: record the item in $TGD_DIR/<feature-name>/DEBT.md (table below) — this is the primary record and works with zero configuration.
Jira configured (JIRA_URL/JIRA_PROJECT/JIRA_TOKEN set): additionally create a Jira issue and put its key in the DEBT.md row. Do NOT stall the review asking for credentials when Jira isn't configured.
Tech Debt Filing Rules
Category
Action
Jira Issue Type
Label
Architecture
Design debt, needs refactor
Improvement
tech-debt
Performance
Known bottleneck, not critical now
Improvement
tech-debt
Security
Low-risk vulnerability, hardening needed
Improvement
security-hardening
Code Quality
Readability/maintainability issues
Improvement
tech-debt
Test Coverage
Missing tests for edge cases
Improvement
test-coverage
When to File Tech Debt
Issue discovered during Review
│
▼
Is this a blocker for merge?
├── YES → Request changes, do NOT merge
└── NO
├── Should it be fixed in this sprint?
│ ├── YES → Fix now (no Jira needed)
│ └── NO → File Jira Improvement
│
├── Is it a known limitation?
│ └── YES → File Jira Improvement + document in code
│
└── Is it a future risk?
└── YES → File Jira Improvement + set priority
Tech Debt Ticket Template
When filing a Jira tech debt issue, include:
## Tech Debt Summary
[One-line description]
## Category
[Architecture / Performance / Security / Code Quality / Test Coverage]
## Priority
[High / Medium / Low]
## Context- Feature: <feature-name>- File(s): [path/to/file]
- Review Stage: /tgd-review
## Current State
[What the code looks like now]
## Desired State
[What the code should look like]
## Impact if Not Addressed
[Consequences of leaving this debt]
## Suggested Approach
[How to fix it - if known]
## Acceptance Criteria- [ ] [Criterion 1]
- [ ] [Criterion 2]
Debt Tracking in TASKS.md
When tech debt is identified:
Add a comment in TASKS.md next to the relevant task:
- [x] Implement login API <!-- TECH-DEBT: JIRA-456 - Password hashing should use bcrypt -->
Create a $TGD_DIR/<feature-name>/DEBT.md file to track all tech debt:
