code-review
Comprehensive code review for commits and pull requests. Covers security, TDD, code quality, and documentation standards.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
メニュー
Comprehensive code review for commits and pull requests. Covers security, TDD, code quality, and documentation standards.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | code-review |
| description | Comprehensive code review for commits and pull requests. Covers security, TDD, code quality, and documentation standards. |
Thorough review with emphasis on Security and TDD.
Code Changes -> Security Scan (P1) -> TDD Validation (P2) -> Code Quality -> Verdict
| Vulnerability | Red Flag |
|---|---|
| Injection | String concatenation in queries |
| Broken Auth | Plain text passwords, weak tokens |
| Sensitive Data Exposure | Secrets in logs |
| XSS | innerHTML, dangerouslySetInnerHTML |
| Broken Access Control | Missing permission checks |
// CRITICAL: SQL Injection
// BAD:
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
// GOOD:
const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?';
db.query(query, [userId]);
// CRITICAL: XSS
// BAD:
element.innerHTML = userInput;
// GOOD:
element.textContent = userInput;
// CRITICAL: Command injection
// BAD:
exec(`ls ${userPath}`);
// GOOD:
fs.readdir(userPath);
// CRITICAL: Hardcoded secrets
// BAD:
const apiKey = 'sk-1234567890';
// GOOD:
const apiKey = process.env.API_KEY;
| Question | Expected | Red Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Tests written first? | Yes | Implementation without tests |
| Tests define behavior? | WHAT not HOW | Internal implementation tested |
| Coverage adequate? | Critical paths covered | Only happy path |
| Tests independent? | Run in isolation | Order-dependent |
// BAD: Testing implementation details
test('calls internal method', () => {
const spy = jest.spyOn(service, '_privateMethod');
service.doThing();
expect(spy).toHaveBeenCalled(); // Testing HOW, not WHAT
});
// GOOD: Testing behavior/outcome
test('returns processed result', () => {
const result = service.doThing();
expect(result).toEqual(expectedOutput); // Testing WHAT
});
// BAD: Unrealistic mock data
const mockUser = { id: 1, name: 'test' };
// GOOD: Realistic test data
const mockUser = {
id: 'usr_abc123',
name: 'Jane Smith',
email: 'jane@example.com',
createdAt: new Date('2024-01-15'),
roles: ['user', 'admin']
};
// BAD: Only happy path
test('creates user', () => {
const user = createUser(validData);
expect(user).toBeDefined();
});
// GOOD: Edge cases covered
test('creates user with valid data', () => { /* ... */ });
test('throws on missing email', () => { /* ... */ });
test('throws on duplicate username', () => { /* ... */ });
test('handles unicode names', () => { /* ... */ });
| Pattern | Problem |
|---|---|
catch (e) { } | Silent exception |
| TODO, FIXME, HACK | Incomplete work |
| Commented-out code | Dead code |
any overuse | Type safety bypassed |
| Bad | Good |
|---|---|
if (status === 3) | if (status === Status.APPROVED) |
setTimeout(fn, 5000) | setTimeout(fn, TIMEOUT_MS) |
'http://localhost:3000' | process.env.API_URL |
| Symptom Fix (Bad) | Root Cause Fix (Good) |
|---|---|
| Add null check where crash occurs | Validate data at entry point |
| Retry failed request 3 times | Fix why request fails |
| Catch and ignore error | Handle error appropriately |
| Add delay to avoid race condition | Fix the race condition |
| Level | Required |
|---|---|
| File | @file, @description, @related |
| Class | Purpose, responsibilities |
| Function | @param, @returns, @throws |
// BAD: No documentation
export function createUser(data) {
return db.create(data);
}
// GOOD: Full documentation
/**
* Creates a new user account with validation.
*
* @param data - User creation input
* @returns Created user object
* @throws {ValidationError} If email invalid
*
* @related
* - ./UserRepository.ts - Database persistence
* - ../validators/email.ts - Email validation
*/
export async function createUser(data: CreateUserInput): Promise<User>
| Flag | Severity | Action |
|---|---|---|
| SQL/Command injection | CRITICAL | Block |
| Hardcoded secrets | CRITICAL | Block |
| XSS vulnerability | CRITICAL | Block |
| No tests for new code | MAJOR | Request tests |
| Tests modified to pass | MAJOR | Investigate |
| Silent exception catch | MAJOR | Require logging |
| Missing file header | MAJOR | Add docs |
# Code Review: [Branch/PR]
## Summary
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Files reviewed | X |
| Security issues | X (Y critical) |
| TDD compliance | Y/N |
| Verdict | Ready/Review/Rework |
## Security Issues
### Critical
1. **[Type]** - `file:line`
- Problem: [desc]
- Impact: [potential damage]
- Fix: [solution]
## TDD Issues
1. **[Issue]** - `file:line`
- Fix: [tests to add]
## Code Quality Issues
[issues]
## Verdict
[decision + reasoning]
### Required Before Merge
- [ ] [action item]
# Check for secrets
grep -r "password\|secret\|api_key\|token" --include="*.ts"
# Check for SQL injection
grep -r "SELECT.*\${" --include="*.ts"
# Check for XSS
grep -r "innerHTML\|dangerouslySetInnerHTML" --include="*.tsx"
# Check test coverage
npm test -- --coverage
# Verify tests exist for changed files
| Condition | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Any critical security | Needs Rework |
| No tests for new functionality | Needs Review |
| Minor issues only | Ready (with suggestions) |
| No issues | Ready to merge |
<decision-transparency>
**Decision:** Approve with minor suggestions (Ready)
**Reasoning:**
- **Security**: No vulnerabilities found
- **Testing**: All new code has tests
- **Quality**: Minor naming suggestions only
**Issues Found:**
1. Minor: Variable name `d` could be `data` (line 42)
2. Minor: Consider extracting magic number 5 to constant
**Confidence:** High - Standard approval scenario
</decision-transparency>
<debate-invitation>
**Topic:** Handling of deprecated API usage
**Option A: Block Until Fixed**
- Pros: No technical debt
- Cons: Delays release
**Option B: Approve with Follow-up Task**
- Pros: Pragmatic, allows progress
- Cons: Debt may linger
**My Lean:** Option B - Create ticket, set deadline
**Your Input Needed:** Is there a release deadline? How critical is this code path?
</debate-invitation>
AID Phase 4 - Development phase. Use for implementing features, TDD practices, code reviews, transitioning from planning to QA.
AID Phase 0 - Research & discovery. Use for validating problem spaces, identifying stakeholders, defining success metrics, deciding whether to proceed.
AID Phase 3 - Implementation Planning with consolidation-first approach. Resolves contradictions between PRD and Tech Spec, creates consolidated master document, then breaks down into actionable tasks and populates Jira. Includes sprint planning and risk assessment.
AID Phase 1 - PRD creation. Use for user stories, acceptance criteria, scoping features, transitioning from discovery to tech spec.
AID Phase 5 - QA and Release. Use for validating implementations, acceptance tests, preparing releases, deployment, operational readiness.
AID Phase 2 - Technical Specification. Use for system architecture, API contracts, data models, security architecture, transitioning from PRD to implementation.