gemini-review

name	gemini-review
description	Interactive code review using Google Gemini 3.0 Flash with Conventional Comments methodology. MANDATORY - runs automatically after every code implementation (Edit, Write tools). Provides numbered issues for selective fixing. Reviews for security, bugs, performance, and best practices. Triggers automatically - no user request needed.

Gemini Review

Interactive code review with selective fix application using Gemini 3.0 Flash.

Critical Behavior - MANDATORY

After EVERY Edit or Write tool that modifies code files:

1. Run review: python scripts/gemini_review.py --files "<modified_files>"
2. Display the numbered issue list
3. Ask user: "Which issues to fix? (1,2,3 / all / blocking / skip)"
4. Apply selected fixes using Edit tool
5. If blocking issues remain after fixes, re-run review

Do NOT skip this. Do NOT ask permission. This is automatic.

Review Output Format

Issues are displayed with selection numbers:

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🔍 GEMINI CODE REVIEW
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

📁 Reviewed: auth.py, utils.py
🧠 Thinking: medium
🔄 Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES (2 blocking)

Code has security issues that need immediate attention.

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 🚨 BLOCKING (Must Fix)                                        │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ [1] auth.py:42 - Plaintext password comparison                │
│     Category: security | Effort: small                        │
│     → Use secrets.compare_digest() for timing-safe compare    │
│                                                               │
│ [2] auth.py:67 - SQL injection vulnerability                  │
│     Category: security | Effort: small                        │
│     → Use parameterized queries                               │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ⚠️ WARNINGS (Should Fix)                                      │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ [3] utils.py:15 - Missing error handling                      │
│     Effort: trivial                                           │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 💡 SUGGESTIONS (Optional)                                     │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ [4] Consider using dataclass for User model                   │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

✅ Positive: Good separation of concerns; Clean function naming

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Select: numbers (1,2,3) | 'all' | 'blocking' | 'skip'
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Selection Options

Input	Action
1,2,3	Fix specific issues by number
all	Fix all issues
blocking	Fix blocking issues only (recommended default)
skip	Continue without fixing

Workflow Example

User: "Add login function to auth.py"

Claude:
1. [Edit auth.py - add login function]
2. [Run] python scripts/gemini_review.py --files "auth.py"
3. [Display] Numbered issue list (2 blocking, 1 warning)
4. [Ask] "Found 2 blocking issues. Fix which? (1,2 / all / blocking / skip)"
5. [User] "blocking"
6. [Edit auth.py - fix issue 1: password comparison]
7. [Edit auth.py - fix issue 2: SQL injection]
8. [Report] "Fixed 2 blocking issues. Code ready."

Command Options

# Standard review with interactive output
python scripts/gemini_review.py --files "file.py"

# JSON output for programmatic use
python scripts/gemini_review.py --files "file.py" --json

# Focus on specific area
python scripts/gemini_review.py --files "file.py" --focus security
python scripts/gemini_review.py --files "file.py" --focus performance
python scripts/gemini_review.py --files "file.py" --focus quality

# Manual thinking level (auto-detected by default)
python scripts/gemini_review.py --files "file.py" --think high

Thinking Levels

Level	When Used	Description
minimal	<100 lines, simple code	Fast review
medium	Multiple files, complex logic	Balanced (default)
high	Security-sensitive, >500 lines	Deep analysis

Thinking level is auto-detected based on:

• Code size and complexity
• Presence of security-related code (auth, passwords, SQL)
• Number of files and classes

Exit Codes

Code	Meaning	Claude Action
0	Success / No issues	Show results, continue
1	API or general error	Log error, continue work
2	No API key	Prompt for key setup
3	Has blocking issues	Prompt for fix selection

Review Methodology

Uses Conventional Comments standard:

Label	Severity	Meaning
issue(blocking)	critical	Must fix (security, bugs)
issue(non-blocking)	high	Should fix
suggestion	medium	Optional improvement
nitpick	low	Style/preference
praise	-	What's done well

First-Time Setup

If exit code 2 (NO_API_KEY):

1. Prompt: "Gemini API key required. Get one at: https://aistudio.google.com/apikey"
2. Run: python scripts/setup_api_key.py --key "<user_key>"
3. Re-run review

Files to Review

Include: .py, .ts, .tsx, .js, .jsx, .go, .rs, .java, .kt, .swift, .c, .cpp, .rb, .php

Skip: .json, .yaml, .md, .txt, .lock, .log, .env

Error Handling

Never block user's work due to review errors. If API fails:

1. Log the error
2. Continue with the task
3. Note that review was skipped

Detailed Criteria

For comprehensive review criteria, see references/review-criteria.md.