code-review

name	code-review
description	Security-focused code review of current git changes. Use when reviewing code diffs, checking for vulnerabilities, or before merging branches.
metadata	{"author":"GhostWorks"}

Security-Focused Code Review

Review current git changes with a focus on security issues and code quality.

Parse the user's input to determine scope:

• $code-review → review all changes (staged + unstaged)
• $code-review staged → only staged changes
• $code-review unstaged → only unstaged changes

Steps

1. Determine scope from user input (default: all)

   • staged: git diff --staged
   • unstaged: git diff
   • all: both git diff and git diff --staged

2. Run git status for the full picture

3. Read the full content of each changed file for context (not just the diff)

4. Analyze for:

Security Issues (Critical)

• Injection: SQL injection, command injection, XSS, SSTI, LDAP injection
• Hardcoded secrets: API keys, passwords, tokens, connection strings, private keys
• Path traversal: unsanitized file path inputs, ../ patterns
• Insecure deserialization: pickle, yaml.load without SafeLoader, json with custom decoders
• Weak crypto: MD5/SHA1 for security, ECB mode, hardcoded IVs, insufficient key lengths
• SSRF: unvalidated URLs in HTTP requests, DNS rebinding potential
• Race conditions: TOCTOU, shared state without locks, async hazards
• Auth issues: missing auth checks, privilege escalation, IDOR patterns
• CORS misconfiguration: overly permissive Access-Control-Allow-Origin, credentials with wildcard
• JWT issues: algorithm confusion (none/HS256 vs RS256), missing expiration, weak secrets

Logic & Correctness

• Off-by-one errors, boundary conditions
• Unhandled error cases that could crash or leak info
• Resource leaks (unclosed files, connections, sockets)
• Incorrect type handling

Code Quality

• Overly complex logic that could hide bugs
• Missing input validation at trust boundaries
• Inconsistent error handling patterns

5. Present findings by severity:

   • CRITICAL: Exploitable security vulnerabilities
   • HIGH: Security weaknesses, data exposure risks
   • MEDIUM: Logic bugs, error handling gaps
   • LOW: Style issues, minor improvements

6. Each finding includes: file:line, issue, why it matters, suggested fix

7. Summary: total by severity, verdict (safe to merge / needs fixes / needs rework)