| name | code-review |
| description | Toolkit for performing structured code reviews. Covers identifying bugs, security issues, performance problems, and style violations. Use when asked to review code changes, pull requests, or individual files. Use when this capability is needed. |
| metadata | {"author":"agntcy"} |
Code Review
Perform structured code reviews that identify bugs, security issues, performance problems,
and style violations in source code.
Decision Tree: Choosing Your Approach
Review request → Is it a full PR / diff?
├─ Yes → Read the diff, then review file-by-file
│ ├─ Security issues → Flag as critical
│ ├─ Bugs / logic errors → Flag as high
│ └─ Style / naming → Flag as suggestion
│
└─ No (single file) → Read the file in context
├─ Check imports and dependencies
├─ Verify error handling
└─ Look for common anti-patterns
Review Checklist
- Correctness — Does the code do what it claims?
- Security — Are inputs validated? Are secrets handled safely?
- Performance — Are there unnecessary allocations, N+1 queries, or unbounded loops?
- Readability — Is the intent clear without excessive comments?
- Tests — Are edge cases covered?
Examples
- "Review this Go function for potential nil pointer dereferences"
- "Check this PR diff for SQL injection vulnerabilities"
- "Suggest improvements for readability in this Python module"
Guidelines
- Prefer actionable feedback over vague suggestions
- Always explain why something is a problem, not just what
- Group findings by severity: critical, high, medium, suggestion
- When suggesting a fix, show a concrete code snippet
Source: agntcy/dir — distributed by TomeVault.
