| name | code-review |
| description | Structured code review with blast radius analysis, security scanning, quality scoring, and a 30+ item checklist.
TRIGGER when: user asks to review a PR, diff, changeset, or code for quality/security/breaking changes; user runs /review or /code-review; reviewing staged or committed changes.
DO NOT TRIGGER when: writing new code from scratch, refactoring without review context, general debugging.
|
| metadata | {"author":"droo","version":"1.0","tags":"code-review,security,quality,blast-radius,breaking-changes,checklist"} |
Code Review Skill
Systematic code review following a fixed sequence: scope the change, assess blast radius, scan for security issues, verify tests, detect breaking changes, check performance, and score quality.
Review Workflow
- Scope -- Identify what changed (files, modules, services). Classify as feature, bugfix, refactor, config, or docs.
- Blast radius -- Trace dependencies to determine how far the change reaches. See blast-radius.md.
- Security scan -- Run pattern-based checks for common vulnerabilities. See security-scan.md.
- Test coverage -- Verify new/changed code has tests. Flag untested branches and edge cases.
- Breaking changes -- Detect API, schema, config, and dependency changes that break consumers. See breaking-changes.md.
- Performance -- Flag N+1 queries, unbounded loops, missing pagination, large allocations, blocking I/O on hot paths.
- Quality -- Score SOLID adherence, complexity, and code smells. See quality-checks.md.
Run the full checklist to ensure nothing is missed.
Output Format
Organize findings into four categories with severity:
| Category | Severity | Meaning |
|---|
| MUST FIX | CRITICAL/HIGH | Bugs, security holes, data loss risks |
| SHOULD FIX | HIGH/MEDIUM | Design issues, missing tests, poor patterns |
| SUGGESTIONS | MEDIUM/LOW | Style, naming, minor improvements |
| LOOKS GOOD | -- | Explicitly call out well-done aspects |
Format each finding as:
[MUST FIX | SHOULD FIX | SUGGESTION] (severity) file:line
Description of the issue.
Recommended fix or alternative.
Always end with a summary: total findings by category, overall quality score (0-100), and a PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / FAIL verdict.
What You Get
- A structured review report with findings categorized as MUST FIX, SHOULD FIX, SUGGESTIONS, and LOOKS GOOD, each with severity and file location.
- Blast radius analysis showing how far the change reaches through dependency chains.
- A quality score (0-100) and a final verdict (PASS, CONDITIONAL PASS, or FAIL).
Sub-files
