neo-code-review

name	neo-code-review
description	Use this skill when the user asks for a code review, audit, PR/diff review, bug risk scan, security/performance/style feedback, or validation of recent changes. Prioritize actionable findings with file and line evidence.

Code Review Specifications

Apply the Reviewer Pattern. Follow this protocol strictly to systematically, objectively, and constructively review the user's code changes.

---

1. Perceive Phase

1. Identify the Input Source:

   • Scenario A: Specific files are provided
     • If the user provides specific file paths or directly attaches code snippets in the conversation, use them as the primary targets for review.
   • Scenario B: No files are specified but inside a Git repository
     • If the user asks to "review changes", "review PR", or asks for a review without providing explicit code but the project is a Git repository, proactively run the helper script to fetch the changes:

       uv run skills/neo-code-review/scripts/git-diff-reviewer.py
       

     • To review only the staging area, append the --staged argument.
     • To review a specific commit range, append the --commit <range> argument.
   • Scenario C: No changes detected and not a Git repository
     • If no code input is detected and the environment is not a Git repository, gracefully prompt the user: "No code changes detected. Please provide a specific code snippet or file path." and terminate the review.

2. Identify Programming Languages & Frameworks:

   • Identify the programming language (e.g., TypeScript, C#, Python) and relevant frameworks in the code changes to apply language-specific style standards in subsequent phases.

---

2. Reason Phase

1. Load the Review Checklist:

   • Before evaluating any code, always read the external review checklist reference: review-checklist.md

2. Systematically Evaluate Code:

   • Analyze the code logic deeply and compare it against the checklist dimensions: Correctness, Regression Risk, Security, Performance, Data & Concurrency, Test Gaps, SOLID/Design Principles, Logging/Observability, Maintainability, and Style.
   • Prioritize evidence-backed findings that create concrete behavioral, security, operational, compatibility, or maintainability risk.
   • Filter out 🔴 Critical Issues (Must-fix) for defects such as requirement breakage, security vulnerabilities, data corruption/loss, broken authorization, severe regressions, or production-impacting reliability failures.
   • Classify lower-risk performance, design, logging, test coverage, readability, and maintainability issues under 🟡 Suggestions when they have a clear reason and actionable remediation.

---

3. Act Phase

Generate a highly structured and elegant Code Review Report in Traditional Chinese (Taiwan). The report must strictly follow this format:

🔍 審查摘要 (Summary)

• 整體評估 (Overall Assessment): Provide a brief summary and a clear status rating (e.g., "🔴 需要重大修正後合併" (Needs major changes before merging), "🟡 建議修正後合併" (Recommended to fix before merging), "🟢 結構優良，隨時可合併" (Excellent structure, ready to merge)).
• 變更概述 (Change Overview): Briefly describe the main purpose and scope of this change.

🔴 嚴重問題 (Critical Issues)

This section must ONLY contain Must-fix items (security vulnerabilities, critical logic bugs, or severe flaws that may cause system failure). If none are found, write "無" (None).

• [檔案路徑 / 程式碼區段] (File Path / Code Snippet)
  • 問題描述 (Problem Description): Clearly state what the problem is.
  • 嚴重原因 (Severity Reason): Explain why this is a critical issue and its potential consequences.
  • 修復方案 (Remediation): Provide a concrete corrected code snippet (Code Snippet) comparing it with the original or showing the fixed version.

🟡 改進建議 (Suggestions)

Includes suggestions for performance optimization, clean code refactoring, edge-case handling, and comment improvements.

• [檔案路徑 / 程式碼區段] (File Path / Code Snippet)
  • 建議事項 (Recommendation): How to optimize the code for performance, readability, or maintainability.
  • 推薦做法 (Proposed Fix): Provide an optimized code example.

🟢 優秀之處 (Praise) (Optional)

• Highlight exceptionally well-written, elegant, highly readable, or well-tested code sections to encourage best practices.

❓ 疑問與釐清 (Questions) (Optional)

• Ask objective questions regarding business logic or unexpected implementations to seek clarification from the user.

---

4. Communication Guidelines

• Focus on the Code, not the Coder: Be constructive, objective, respectful, and humble.
• Provide Code Snippets: Always provide a "corrected code example" for identified issues where applicable. Avoid purely theoretical descriptions.