review-workflow

name	review-workflow
description	Code review framework: 5-category evaluation, structured output format, severity levels. Load when performing thorough code reviews of changes, diffs, or pull requests.

Code Review Framework

Structured approach to evaluating code changes for quality, correctness, and maintainability.

<review_categories>

1. Style & Conventions

• Language-specific style guide adherence
• Consistency with existing codebase patterns
• Naming conventions (variables, functions, classes)
• Formatting and readability

2. Bugs & Logic

• Logical errors, unhandled edge cases
• Null/undefined checks, error handling
• Resource leaks (memory, file handles, connections)
• Race conditions, concurrency issues
• Security vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, etc.)
• Off-by-one errors, boundary conditions

3. Performance

• Algorithmic complexity
• Unnecessary computations, redundant operations
• Memory usage patterns
• Database query optimization
• Hot path efficiency

4. Maintainability

• Code clarity, self-documentation
• Function/class size, single responsibility
• Coupling and cohesion
• Code duplication (DRY)
• Testability and modularity

5. Documentation

• Inline comments for complex logic
• Function/class docstrings
• README updates for API changes
• Changelog entries for significant changes

</review_categories>

1. **Context**: understand the purpose and scope of the change 2. **Line-by-line**: review each changed line critically, use grep/ast-grep to understand surrounding context 3. **Holistic**: assess architectural impact, integration, ripple effects 4. **Action items**: categorize findings by severity

<severity_levels>

• Critical (must fix): bugs, security issues, data loss risks, correctness failures
• Warning (should fix): performance issues, maintainability concerns, missing error handling
• Suggestion (nice to have): style improvements, alternative approaches, future considerations </severity_levels>

<output_format>

### Summary
- Overall: [approve / request changes / needs discussion]
- Scope: [what changed]
- Issues: [N critical, N warning, N suggestion]

### Critical Issues
- [ ] file:line — description. Impact: ... Fix: ...

### Warnings
- [ ] file:line — description. Rationale: ... Recommendation: ...

### Suggestions
- [ ] description. Alternative: ...

### Positive
- Good practices observed
- Well-designed sections

### Checklist
- [ ] Builds successfully
- [ ] Tests pass
- [ ] No security vulnerabilities
- [ ] Documentation updated
- [ ] Follows project conventions

</output_format>

- Be specific: point to exact lines with concrete examples - Explain why: include reasoning behind suggestions - Offer solutions: identify problems and propose fixes - Acknowledge good work: recognize thoughtful decisions - Separate severity: distinguish blockers from suggestions - Focus on code, not the author