code-review

name	code-review
description	Perform thorough code reviews on pull requests, diffs, or code changes. Use when asked to review code, check a PR, or provide feedback on changes.

Code Review

A structured approach to reviewing code changes.

Instructions

When reviewing code, follow this process:

1. Understand the Context

Before diving into the code:

• Read the PR description or commit message
• Understand what problem is being solved
• Note any linked issues or requirements

2. Review in Passes

Make multiple passes through the code:

First pass — Correctness

• Does the code do what it claims to do?
• Are there logic errors or edge cases missed?
• Could this break existing functionality?

Second pass — Security

• Input validation present where needed?
• No hardcoded secrets or credentials?
• SQL injection, XSS, or other OWASP top 10 risks?

Third pass — Maintainability

• Is the code readable and well-organized?
• Are names clear and consistent?
• Is complexity justified?

Fourth pass — Performance

• Any obvious inefficiencies (N+1 queries, unnecessary loops)?
• Appropriate data structures used?
• Resource cleanup handled?

3. Provide Feedback

Structure your review:

## Summary
[One sentence overall assessment]

## What's Good
- [Positive observations]

## Suggestions
- [Actionable improvements, ordered by importance]

## Questions
- [Clarifying questions if any]

4. Severity Levels

Categorize issues:

• Blocker — Must fix before merge (bugs, security issues)
• Should fix — Important but not blocking
• Nitpick — Style preferences, minor suggestions

Examples

Example Review Output

## Summary
Solid implementation of user authentication. One security issue needs addressing before merge.

## What's Good
- Clean separation of auth logic from route handlers
- Good use of bcrypt for password hashing
- Comprehensive error handling

## Suggestions
1. **[Blocker]** Line 45: Password reset token should use `crypto.randomBytes(32)` instead of `Math.random()` — predictable tokens are a security risk
2. **[Should fix]** Line 78: Consider adding rate limiting to prevent brute force attempts
3. **[Nitpick]** Line 12: Typo in variable name `authetication` → `authentication`

## Questions
- Is there a reason we're storing sessions in memory rather than Redis? This won't scale across multiple instances.