code-review

name	code-review
description	Structured code review skill. Use when asked to "review this code", "review this PR", "check this diff", or when acting as a Hydra reviewer. Runs a multi-pass review with specialist focus areas and confidence-gated findings.

Code Review

Structured multi-pass review. Read the full diff before commenting on anything.

Phase 1: Orient

1. Determine the review scope:
   • If reviewing a PR: git diff <base>..HEAD
   • If reviewing staged changes: git diff --cached
   • If reviewing a file: read the file
2. Understand the intent: read the commit messages, PR description, or task description to understand what the change is supposed to do
3. Identify the change type: feature, bugfix, refactor, config, dependency update

Phase 2: Critical Pass

Read the diff line by line. Flag only real issues:

Always check:

• Logic errors (wrong conditions, off-by-one, missing null checks on external data)
• SQL injection, XSS, command injection, path traversal
• Race conditions in concurrent code
• Resource leaks (unclosed handles, missing cleanup)
• Missing error handling at system boundaries (network, file I/O, user input)
• Breaking API contract changes without version bump

Never flag:

• Style preferences (naming, formatting) unless they cause confusion
• Missing comments on self-explanatory code
• Hypothetical edge cases that cannot happen given the invariants
• "I would have done it differently" without a concrete defect

Phase 3: Specialist Focus

Based on the change type, apply the relevant specialist lens:

If the diff touches tests:

• Do tests actually test behavior, or just assert mock return values?
• Are there tautological assertions (expect(true).toBe(true))?
• Is the test coupled to implementation details rather than outcomes?

If the diff touches data access:

• N+1 query patterns in loops
• Unbounded result sets without pagination
• Transactions where atomic operations are needed

If the diff touches auth/security:

• Apply Phase 2-4 of the security-audit skill to the changed code

If the diff touches UI:

• State management: are loading/error/empty states handled?
• Accessibility: keyboard navigation, semantic HTML, ARIA labels
• Responsive: does it work at mobile/tablet/desktop breakpoints?

Phase 4: Verdict

For each finding, assign a confidence level:

• High (8-10): Confirmed defect with clear evidence — fix before merge
• Medium (5-7): Likely issue, but may depend on context — discuss
• Low (1-4): Possible concern, worth noting — optional

Report format per finding:

[severity] file:line — description
Confidence: N/10
Suggestion: specific fix

Final verdict

• Approve: no High findings, no more than 2 Medium findings
• Request changes: any High finding, or 3+ Medium findings
• If nothing is wrong: say "no issues found" — do not invent problems

Rules

• Read the code before commenting — never review from the description alone
• Every finding must reference a specific file and line
• Do not suggest refactoring that is unrelated to the change being reviewed
• A review that flags nothing wrong is a valid review — do not pad