code-review

name	code-review
description	Deep code audit that finds dead wiring, silent failures, unfinished features, placeholder stubs, bloated files, and unnecessary complexity. Produces an actionable report with file:line references grouped by severity. Think of it as a senior dev doing a thorough PR review of the entire codebase. Triggers on: "code review", "audit the code", "review the code", "find dead code", "find placeholders", "check for stubs", "prune the code", "code cleanup", "implementation review", "completeness check", "find unused code".
license	MIT
compatibility	Claude Code
metadata	{"author":"custom","version":"1.0.0","platform":"Any codebase (TypeScript, JavaScript, C#, PowerShell, Python)","requires":"File system access (Read, Grep, Glob)"}

Code Review — Deep Codebase Audit Skill

You perform a thorough, multi-pass audit of a codebase looking for real problems — not style nits. You find the gaps that cause bugs in production: functions nobody calls, errors nobody sees, features half-built, and code that should be deleted.

Not to be confused with the code-reviewer agent in the ravenclaude-core plugin. That agent reviews a single pending diff pre-merge (one branch, one PR). This skill audits the whole codebase across many files. Use the agent for "approve this PR"; use this skill for "find everything that's broken or dead in this repo."

CRITICAL RULES

1. Every finding must include file:line references. No vague "somewhere in the code" findings.
2. Categorize by severity. CRITICAL > WARNING > PRUNE > INFO. Read resources/severity-guide.md.
3. Run ALL passes. Don't skip passes because early ones found nothing. Read resources/audit-passes.md.
4. Never suggest adding code without showing what to remove. This is a pruning exercise, not a feature request.
5. Focus on real bugs, not style. Don't flag formatting, naming conventions, or missing comments unless they actively cause confusion or bugs.
6. Provide the fix, not just the finding. Each finding should say what to do about it.

Audit Architecture

The review runs 7 passes over the codebase. Each pass looks for a different class of problem. The passes are ordered from most critical (broken functionality) to least critical (cleanup opportunities).

Pass 1: WIRING          — Is everything connected end-to-end?
Pass 2: ERROR HANDLING   — Can failures be seen and debugged?
Pass 3: COMPLETENESS     — Are features fully implemented?
Pass 4: DEAD CODE        — What can be deleted right now?
Pass 5: BLOAT            — What's too big, too complex, or redundant?
Pass 6: HARDCODING       — What should be configurable but isn't?
Pass 7: SECURITY         — Any obvious vulnerabilities?

Read resources/audit-passes.md for the detailed checklist for each pass.

Workflow

Phase 1 — Scope the Review

Before auditing, understand the codebase:

1. What's the project? Read README, CLAUDE.md, package.json, etc.
2. What's the tech stack? Framework, language, build tools
3. What's the architecture? Entry points, services, stores, components
4. What was recently changed? If there's git history, focus on recent additions

Build a mental map of the codebase:

• Entry point → Router → Pages → Components → Stores → Services → External APIs
• Trace the full data flow from user action to persistence and back

Phase 2 — Run the 7 Audit Passes

For each pass, use Grep and Glob to systematically search for the patterns described in resources/audit-passes.md.

Use parallel agents when the codebase is large. Spawn agents for independent passes:

• Agent 1: Passes 1-2 (Wiring + Error Handling) — these are related
• Agent 2: Passes 3-4 (Completeness + Dead Code) — these are related
• Agent 3: Passes 5-7 (Bloat + Hardcoding + Security) — lighter passes

Phase 3 — Cross-Reference

After individual passes, cross-reference findings:

• Does a "dead code" finding explain a "wiring" gap? (function exists but never called)
• Does a "completeness" gap overlap with a "placeholder" finding?
• Deduplicate — one root cause might show up in multiple passes

Phase 4 — Compile the Report

Output format (read resources/report-format.md):

# Code Review Report — [Project Name]
Date: [date]
Files Scanned: [count]
Findings: [count] (X critical, Y warning, Z prune, W info)

## CRITICAL — Must Fix
These cause broken functionality, data loss, or security holes.

### CR-001: [Title]
**File:** `src/stores/game-store.ts:108`
**Pass:** Wiring
**Problem:** `submitGameSession()` is defined in dataverse.ts but never called.
Game results are never persisted to Dataverse.
**Fix:** Call `submitGameSession()` from the `endGame()` action in game-store.ts.

## WARNING — Should Fix
These cause degraded experience, silent failures, or maintainability issues.

## PRUNE — Consider Removing
Dead code, redundant logic, bloated files. Removing these makes the codebase
leaner and easier to maintain.

## INFO — Minor Observations
Nice-to-know items that don't require action.

Phase 5 — Pruning Recommendations

After the main audit, generate a pruning plan. Read resources/pruning-guide.md.

The pruning plan should:

1. List files/functions/types that can be safely deleted
2. List files that should be split (too many responsibilities)
3. List abstractions that should be inlined (used only once)
4. List dependencies that can be removed from package.json
5. Estimate the total lines of code that would be removed

Without Agent Teams

If running as a single agent, execute passes sequentially. Prioritize passes 1-3 (Wiring, Error Handling, Completeness) as these find the most impactful issues. Passes 4-7 are still valuable but can be deferred if time-constrained.