code-review-expert

# Code Review Expert ## Overview Perform a structured review of the current git changes with focus on SOLID, architecture, removal candidates, and security risks. Default to review-only output unless the user asks to implement changes. ## Severity Levels | Level | Name | Description | Action | | ------ | -------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | | **P0** | Critical | Security vulnerability, data loss risk, correctness bug | Must block merge | | **P1** | High | Logic error, significant SOLID violation, performance regression | Should fix before merge | | **P2** | Medium | Code smell, maintainability concern, minor SOLID violation | Fix in this PR or create follow-up | | **P3** | Low | Style, naming, minor suggestion | Optional improvement | ## Workflow ### 1) Preflight context - Use `git status -sb`, `git diff --stat`, and `git diff` to scope changes. - If needed, use `rg` or `grep` to find related modules, usages, and contracts. - Identify entry points, ownership boundaries, and critical paths (auth, payments, data writes, network). **Edge cases:** - **No changes**: If `git diff` is empty, inform user and ask if they want to review staged changes or a specific commit range. - **Large diff (>500 lines)**: Summarize by file first, then review in batches by module/feature area. - **Mixed concerns**: Group findings by logical feature, not just file order. ### 2) SOLID + architecture smells - Load `references/solid-checklist.md` for specific prompts. - Look for: - **SRP**: Overloaded modules with unrelated responsibilities. - **OCP**: Frequent edits to add behavior instead of extension points. - **LSP**: Subclasses that break expectations or require type checks. - **ISP**: Wide interfaces with unused methods. - **DIP**: High-level logic tied to low-level implementations. - When you propose a refactor, explain _why_ it improves cohesion/coupling and outline a minimal, safe split. - If refactor is non-trivial, propose an incremental plan instead of a large rewrite. ### 3) Removal candidates + iteration plan - Load `references/removal-plan.md` for template. - Identify code that is unused, redundant, or feature-flagged off. - Distinguish **safe delete now** vs **defer with plan**. - Provide a follow-up plan with concrete steps and checkpoints (tests/metrics). ### 4) Security and reliability scan - Load `references/security-checklist.md` for coverage. - Check for: - XSS, injection (SQL/NoSQL/command), SSRF, path traversal - AuthZ/AuthN gaps, missing tenancy checks - Secret leakage or API keys in logs/env/files - Rate limits, unbounded loops, CPU/memory hotspots - Unsafe deserialization, weak crypto, insecure defaults - **Race conditions**: concurrent access, check-then-act, TOCTOU, missing locks - Call out both **exploitability** and **impact**. ### 5) Code quality scan - Load `references/code-quality-checklist.md` for coverage. - Check for: - **Error handling**: swallowed exceptions, overly broad catch, missing error handling, async errors - **Performance**: N+1 queries, CPU-intensive ops in hot paths, missing cache, unbounded memory - **Boundary conditions**: null/undefined handling, empty collections, numeric boundaries, off-by-one - Flag issues that may cause silent failures or production incidents. ### 6) Output format Structure your review as follows: ```markdown ## Code Review Summary **Files reviewed**: X files, Y lines changed **Overall assessment**: [APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / COMMENT] --- ## Findings ### P0 - Critical (none or list) ### P1 - High 1. **[file:line]** Brief title - Description of issue - Suggested fix ### P2 - Medium 2. (continue numbering across sections) - ... ### P3 - Low ... --- ## Removal/Iteration Plan (if applicable) ## Additional Suggestions (optional improvements, not blocking) ``` **Inline comments**: Use this format for file-specific findings: ``` ::code-comment{file="path/to/file.ts" line="42" severity="P1"} Description of the issue and suggested fix. :: ``` **Clean review**: If no issues found, explicitly state: - What was checked - Any areas not covered (e.g., "Did not verify database migrations") - Residual risks or recommended follow-up tests ### 7) Next steps confirmation After presenting findings, ask user how to proceed: ```markdown --- ## Next Steps I found X issues (P0: _, P1: _, P2: _, P3: _). **How would you like to proceed?** 1. **Fix all** - I'll implement all suggested fixes 2. **Fix P0/P1 only** - Address critical and high priority issues 3. **Fix specific items** - Tell me which issues to fix 4. **No changes** - Review complete, no implementation needed Please choose an option or provide specific instructions. ``` **Important**: Do NOT implement any changes until user explicitly confirms. This is a review-first workflow. ## Resources ### references/ | File | Purpose | | --------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | | `solid-checklist.md` | SOLID smell prompts and refactor heuristics | | `security-checklist.md` | Web/app security and runtime risk checklist | | `code-quality-checklist.md` | Error handling, performance, boundary conditions | | `removal-plan.md` | Template for deletion candidates and follow-up plan |