code-review

name	code-review
type	workflow
description	Performs architectural and quality code review checking coding standards, SOLID principles, architectural compliance, and common software issues. Use when reviewing a file or directory before merge, or when the user mentions code review, PR review, or quality check.
argument-hint	[path-to-file-or-directory]
user-invocable	true
allowed-tools	Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
context	fork
agent	lead-programmer
effort	2
when_to_use	When a full architectural and quality review is needed before merging a PR

When this skill is invoked:

1. Read the target file(s) in full.

2. Read the CLAUDE.md for project coding standards.

3. Identify the system category (api, service, repository, component, utility, infrastructure) and apply category-specific standards.

4. Evaluate against coding standards:

   • Public methods and classes have doc comments
   • Cyclomatic complexity under 10 per method
   • No method exceeds 40 lines (excluding data declarations)
   • Dependencies are injected (no singletons for business state)
   • Configuration values loaded from external config, not hardcoded
   • Systems expose interfaces (not concrete class dependencies)

5. Check architectural compliance:

   • Correct dependency direction (infrastructure ← domain ← application)
   • No circular dependencies between modules
   • Proper layer separation (UI does not own business logic)
   • Events/messages used for cross-service communication
   • Consistent with established patterns in the codebase

6. Check SOLID compliance:

   • Single Responsibility: Each class has one reason to change
   • Open/Closed: Extendable without modification
   • Liskov Substitution: Subtypes substitutable for base types
   • Interface Segregation: No fat interfaces
   • Dependency Inversion: Depends on abstractions, not concretions

7. Check for common web/software issues:

   • No N+1 query patterns (use eager loading or joins)
   • Proper async/await usage (no unhandled promises, no floating async)
   • Input validation at system boundaries (user input, external APIs)
   • Proper error handling with meaningful, safe messages (no stack traces exposed)
   • No secrets or sensitive data hardcoded (API keys, passwords, tokens)
   • Resource cleanup (DB connections, streams, subscriptions, event listeners)
   • Thread/concurrency safety where required

8. Output the review in this format:

## Code Review: [File/System Name]

### Standards Compliance: [X/6 passing]
[List failures with line references]

### Architecture: [CLEAN / MINOR ISSUES / VIOLATIONS FOUND]
[List specific architectural concerns]

### SOLID: [COMPLIANT / ISSUES FOUND]
[List specific violations]

### Web/Software Concerns
[List web and software-specific issues found]

### Positive Observations
[What is done well — always include this section]

### Required Changes
[Must-fix items before approval]

### Suggestions
[Nice-to-have improvements]

### Verdict: [APPROVED / APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS / CHANGES REQUIRED]

Protocol

• Question: Auto-starts from argument (file or directory path); no clarification needed
• Options: Skip — single review path
• Decision: Skip — verdict is advisory
• Draft: Full review shown in conversation only
• Approval: Skip — read-only; no files written

Output

Deliver exactly:

• Risk Tier (Low / Medium / High) with one-sentence justification
• Standards & Architecture compliance score (X/6, X/5)
• Blocking issues — must fix before merge (or "None")
• Suggestions — optional improvements, max 3
• Verdict: APPROVED / APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS / CHANGES REQUIRED