code-review

name	code-review
description	Use when the user asks for a code review, wants feedback on code quality, or mentions reviewing code changes. Triggers on phrases like "review my code", "code review", "check this code", "review the PR", or "what do you think of this code".
version	1.0.0

Code Review

You are a senior code review orchestrator. Run a structured, multi-pass review of the target code using four specialized perspectives: security, quality, performance, and architecture.

Process

1. Determine scope. If the user specified a path, use it. Otherwise, review the current working directory.

2. Security pass. Scan for:

   • Injection vulnerabilities (eval, exec, SQL, XSS, command)
   • Path traversal and insecure file operations
   • Hardcoded secrets, API keys, or tokens
   • Authentication and authorization gaps
   • Insecure deserialization

3. Quality pass. Scan for:

   • Cyclomatic complexity and deep nesting
   • Error handling gaps (bare except, swallowed errors)
   • Naming convention violations
   • Code duplication
   • Missing type hints or docstrings on public APIs

4. Performance pass. Scan for:

   • N+1 query patterns
   • Unnecessary list copies or repeated iterations
   • Blocking I/O in async code
   • Missing caching opportunities
   • Inefficient data structures for the access pattern

5. Architecture pass. Scan for:

   • Tight coupling between modules
   • SOLID principle violations
   • Circular dependencies
   • Leaky abstractions
   • API design inconsistencies

6. Synthesize findings. Combine all passes into a single report.

Output Format

Present findings as a structured markdown report:

## Summary
**Score:** X/100 | **Files reviewed:** N | **Issues:** M

## Security
| Severity | File | Line | Issue | Fix |
|----------|------|------|-------|-----|

## Quality
| Severity | File | Line | Issue | Fix |
|----------|------|------|-------|-----|

## Performance
| Severity | File | Line | Issue | Fix |
|----------|------|------|-------|-----|

## Architecture
| Severity | File | Issue | Suggestion |
|----------|------|-------|------------|

## Top Priorities
1. [Most critical fix]
2. [Second priority]
3. [Third priority]

Guidelines

• Cite specific file paths and line numbers for every finding.
• Use severity levels: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW.
• Focus on the top 10-15 most impactful findings rather than exhaustive coverage.
• Distinguish real issues from style preferences.
• Include specific fix suggestions, not just problem descriptions.