uipath-code-reviewer

name	uipath-code-reviewer
tags	["uipath-dev","code-review","quality","best-practices"]
description	Review UiPath automation code (XAML and C#) for quality issues, best practices violations, and potential bugs. Generates actionable fix suggestions that can be implemented by AI. Use when asked to review UiPath code, check workflow quality, audit automation, or find issues in XAML/C# workflows. Triggers on requests like "review my UiPath code", "check this workflow", "audit automation quality", "find issues in XAML", or "code review".

UiPath Code Reviewer

Analyze UiPath automation code (XAML workflows and C# coded automations) for quality issues, best practices violations, and potential bugs. Generates structured, actionable fix suggestions that can be automatically implemented.

Official Documentation Reference

This skill aligns with UiPath's official Workflow Analyzer rules:

• UiPath Studio User Guide
• Workflow Analyzer
• Naming Rules
• Design Best Practices
• Security Rules
• Coded Automations Best Practices

When to Use

• "Review my UiPath code"
• "Check this workflow for issues"
• "Audit automation quality"
• "Find bugs in XAML"
• "Code review this automation"
• "What's wrong with this workflow?"
• "Improve my UiPath project"
• Before deploying to production
• After generating UiPath code with other skills

Quick Reference

Review Scope

Category	What It Checks
Naming	Variables, arguments, workflows, activities
Error Handling	Try-Catch coverage, exception types, logging
Performance	Unnecessary delays, inefficient loops, selectors
Security	Hardcoded credentials, sensitive data exposure
Maintainability	Complexity, modularity, documentation
Best Practices	UiPath standards, REFramework compliance

Severity Levels

Level	Description	Action
Critical	Bugs, security issues, will cause failures	Must fix before deployment
High	Best practice violations, performance issues	Should fix
Medium	Code quality, maintainability concerns	Recommended to fix
Low	Style, minor improvements	Nice to have
Info	Suggestions, optimizations	Consider for future

Core Workflow

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  CODE REVIEW WORKFLOW                                           │
│                                                                 │
│  1. LOCATE FILES ──> 2. ANALYZE ──> 3. GENERATE REPORT         │
│     *.xaml, *.cs       Run checks     review-report.md          │
│     project.json       by category                              │
│                                                                 │
│  4. CREATE FIXES ──> 5. (OPTIONAL) APPLY                       │
│     fix-suggestions.json   Auto-implement                       │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 1: Locate UiPath Project Files

Search for files to review:

# Project configuration
**/project.json

# XAML workflows
**/*.xaml

# Coded automations
**/*.cs

# Config files
**/Config.xlsx
**/appsettings.json

Step 2: Analyze Each File

For each file type, run the appropriate checks:

XAML Analysis Checklist

• Namespace declarations - All required namespaces present
• Variable naming - Follows convention (camelCase with type prefix)
• Argument naming - Follows convention (in_/out_/io_ prefix)
• DisplayName - All activities have meaningful DisplayNames
• Error handling - Try-Catch blocks around risky operations
• Logging - Appropriate LogMessage activities
• Selectors - Dynamic, not hardcoded; use wildcards appropriately
• Hardcoded values - No hardcoded credentials or paths
• Activity configuration - Timeouts, delays configured properly
• Workflow complexity - Not too many nested levels

C# Analysis Checklist

• Namespace organization - Proper using statements
• Argument attributes - Correct Direction attributes
• Exception handling - Try-catch with proper exception types
• Logging - Log() calls at appropriate points
• Resource cleanup - Using statements or proper disposal
• Code complexity - Methods not too long
• LINQ usage - Efficient queries, no N+1 patterns

Project Configuration Checklist

• Dependencies - Correct versions, no conflicts
• Entry points - Properly defined
• Runtime options - Appropriate for project type
• Target framework - Compatible with deployment environment

Step 3: Generate Review Report

Create a structured report with all findings.

Step 4: Create Fix Suggestions

Generate machine-readable fix suggestions for each issue.

Step 5: (Optional) Apply Fixes

Use the fix suggestions to automatically implement corrections.

---

UiPath Workflow Analyzer Rule Mapping

This skill checks rules that align with UiPath's built-in Workflow Analyzer. Here's the mapping:

Official UiPath Naming Rules (ST-NMG-*)

UiPath Rule	Description	Our Rule
ST-NMG-001	Variables Naming Convention	RULE-001
ST-NMG-002	Arguments Naming Convention	RULE-002
ST-NMG-004	Display Name Duplication	RULE-004
ST-NMG-005	Variable Overrides Variable	RULE-005
ST-NMG-008	Variable Length Exceeded	RULE-006
ST-NMG-009	Prefix DataTable Variables	RULE-007
ST-NMG-011	Prefix DataTable Arguments	RULE-008
ST-NMG-012	Argument Default Values	RULE-009

Official UiPath Design Best Practices (ST-DBP-*)

UiPath Rule	Description	Our Rule
ST-DBP-002	High Arguments Count	RULE-040
ST-DBP-003	Empty Catch Block	RULE-011
ST-DBP-007	Multiple Flowchart Layers	RULE-044
ST-DBP-020	Undefined Output Properties	RULE-056
ST-DBP-021	Hardcoded Timeout	RULE-032
ST-DBP-023	Empty Workflow	RULE-041

Official UiPath Maintainability Rules (ST-MRD-*)

UiPath Rule	Description	Our Rule
ST-MRD-002	Activity Name Defaults	RULE-004
ST-MRD-007	Nested If Clauses	RULE-044
ST-MRD-008	Empty Sequence	RULE-041
ST-MRD-009	Deeply Nested Activities	RULE-040

Official UiPath Usage Rules (ST-USG-*)

UiPath Rule	Description	Our Rule
ST-USG-005	Hardcoded Activity Properties	RULE-021, RULE-043
ST-USG-009	Unused Variables	RULE-055
ST-USG-020	Minimum Log Messages	RULE-050

Official UiPath Security Rules (ST-SEC-*)

UiPath Rule	Description	Our Rule
ST-SEC-007	SecureString Argument Usage	RULE-023
ST-SEC-008	SecureString Variable Usage	RULE-023
ST-SEC-009	SecureString Misusage	RULE-020

Official UiPath Performance Rules (ST-PRR-*)

UiPath Rule	Description	Our Rule
ST-PRR-004	Hardcoded Delay Activity	RULE-030

Additional Custom Rules (Beyond Workflow Analyzer)

This skill also includes rules not covered by the built-in Workflow Analyzer:

Our Rule	Description	Category
RULE-010	Missing Try-Catch	Error Handling
RULE-012	Generic Exception Only	Error Handling
RULE-013	Missing Retry Logic	Error Handling
RULE-022	Sensitive Data in Logs	Security
RULE-024	SQL Injection Risk	Security
RULE-031	Inefficient Loop	Performance
RULE-033	Selector Too Specific	Performance
RULE-052	Missing Input Validation	Best Practices
RULE-053	HTTP Without Error Check	Best Practices

---

Review Rules Reference

Naming Convention Rules

RULE-001: Variable Naming Convention

Severity: Medium
Category: Naming

Variables should use camelCase with a type prefix.

Type	Prefix	Example
String	str	strFileName
Int32	int	intCounter
Boolean	bool	boolIsValid
DataTable	dt	dtResults
DataRow	row	rowCurrent
DateTime	dt	dtStartTime
Array	arr	arrItems
List	lst	lstNames
Dictionary	dict	dictConfig
Object	obj	objResponse
JObject	jo	joApiResponse
Exception	ex	exCurrent

Bad Examples:

<Variable x:TypeArguments="x:String" Name="filename" />
<Variable x:TypeArguments="x:Int32" Name="Counter" />
<Variable x:TypeArguments="sd:DataTable" Name="data" />

Good Examples:

<Variable x:TypeArguments="x:String" Name="strFileName" />
<Variable x:TypeArguments="x:Int32" Name="intCounter" />
<Variable x:TypeArguments="sd:DataTable" Name="dtData" />

RULE-002: Argument Naming Convention

Severity: Medium
Category: Naming

Arguments should use direction prefix followed by PascalCase.

Direction	Prefix	Example
In	in_	in_FilePath
Out	out_	out_Result
InOut	io_	io_DataTable

Bad Examples:

<x:Property Name="FilePath" Type="InArgument(x:String)" />
<x:Property Name="result" Type="OutArgument(x:String)" />

Good Examples:

<x:Property Name="in_FilePath" Type="InArgument(x:String)" />
<x:Property Name="out_Result" Type="OutArgument(x:String)" />

RULE-003: Workflow File Naming

Severity: Low
Category: Naming

Workflow files should use PascalCase and describe their purpose.

Bad Examples:

• process_data.xaml
• workflow1.xaml
• test.xaml

Good Examples:

• ProcessTransaction.xaml
• InitAllSettings.xaml
• GetTransactionData.xaml

RULE-004: Activity DisplayName

Severity: Medium
Category: Naming

All activities should have descriptive DisplayNames.

Bad Examples:

<Assign DisplayName="Assign">
<ui:LogMessage DisplayName="Log Message">
<If DisplayName="If">

Good Examples:

<Assign DisplayName="Set Transaction Status">
<ui:LogMessage DisplayName="Log Process Start">