code-review-playbook

name	code-review-playbook
license	MIT
compatibility	Claude Code 2.1.76+.
description	Use this skill when conducting or improving code reviews. Provides structured review processes, conventional comments patterns, language-specific checklists, and feedback templates. Use when reviewing PRs or standardizing review practices.
version	2.0.0
author	AI Agent Hub
tags	["code-review","quality","collaboration","best-practices"]
context	inherit
agent	code-quality-reviewer
user-invocable	false
disable-model-invocation	true
hooks	{"PostToolUse":[{"matcher":"Write|Edit","command":"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/bin/run-hook.mjs skill/pattern-consistency-enforcer"}]}
complexity	low
persuasion-type	discipline
effort	low
model	haiku
metadata	{"category":"document-asset-creation"}
allowed-tools	["Read","Glob","Grep","WebFetch","WebSearch"]

Code Review Playbook

This skill provides a comprehensive framework for effective code reviews that improve code quality, share knowledge, and foster collaboration. Whether you're a reviewer giving feedback or an author preparing code for review, this playbook ensures reviews are thorough, consistent, and constructive.

Overview

• Reviewing pull requests or merge requests
• Preparing code for review (self-review)
• Establishing code review standards for teams
• Training new developers on review best practices
• Resolving disagreements about code quality
• Improving review processes and efficiency

Code Review Philosophy

Purpose of Code Reviews

Code reviews serve multiple purposes:

1. Quality Assurance: Catch bugs, logic errors, and edge cases
2. Knowledge Sharing: Spread domain knowledge across the team
3. Consistency: Ensure codebase follows conventions and patterns
4. Mentorship: Help developers improve their skills
5. Collective Ownership: Build shared responsibility for code
6. Documentation: Create discussion history for future reference

Principles

Be Kind and Respectful:

• Review the code, not the person
• Assume positive intent
• Praise good solutions
• Frame feedback constructively

Be Specific and Actionable:

• Point to specific lines of code
• Explain why something should change
• Suggest concrete improvements
• Provide examples when helpful

Balance Speed with Thoroughness:

• Aim for timely feedback (< 24 hours)
• Don't rush critical reviews
• Use automation for routine checks
• Focus human review on logic and design

Distinguish Must-Fix from Nice-to-Have:

• Use conventional comments to indicate severity
• Block merges only for critical issues
• Allow authors to defer minor improvements
• Capture deferred work in follow-up tickets

---

Conventional Comments

issue [blocking]: Missing error handling for API call
If the API returns a 500 error, this will crash. Add try/catch.

security [blocking]: API endpoint is not authenticated
The /api/admin/users endpoint is missing auth middleware.

Load Read("${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/conventional-comments.md") for the full format, labels (praise, nitpick, suggestion, issue, question, security, bug, breaking), decorations ([blocking], [non-blocking], [if-minor]), and examples.

---

Review Process

1. Before Reviewing

Check Context:

• Read the PR/MR description
• Understand the purpose and scope
• Review linked tickets or issues
• Check CI/CD pipeline status

Verify Automated Checks:

• Tests are passing
• Linting has no errors
• Type checking passes
• Code coverage meets targets
• No merge conflicts

Set Aside Time:

• Small PR (< 200 lines): 15-30 minutes
• Medium PR (200-500 lines): 30-60 minutes
• Large PR (> 500 lines): 1-2 hours (or ask to split)

2. During Review

Follow a Pattern:

1. High-Level Review (5-10 minutes)

   • Read PR description and understand intent
   • Skim all changed files to get overview
   • Verify approach makes sense architecturally
   • Check that changes align with stated purpose

2. Detailed Review (20-45 minutes)

   • Line-by-line code review
   • Check logic, edge cases, error handling
   • Verify tests cover new code
   • Look for security vulnerabilities
   • Ensure code follows team conventions

3. Testing Considerations (5-10 minutes)

   • Are tests comprehensive?
   • Do tests test the right things?
   • Are edge cases covered?
   • Is test data realistic?

4. Documentation Check (5 minutes)

   • Are complex sections commented?
   • Is public API documented?
   • Are breaking changes noted?
   • Is README updated if needed?

3. After Reviewing

Provide Clear Decision:

• ✅ Approve: Code is ready to merge
• 💬 Comment: Feedback provided, no action required
• 🔄 Request Changes: Issues must be addressed before merge

Respond to Author:

• Answer questions promptly
• Re-review after changes made
• Approve when issues resolved
• Thank author for addressing feedback

---

Review Checklists

General Code Quality

• Readability: Code is easy to understand
• Naming: Variables and functions have clear, descriptive names
• Comments: Complex logic is explained
• Formatting: Code follows team style guide
• DRY: No unnecessary duplication
• SOLID Principles: Code follows SOLID where applicable
• Function Size: Functions are focused and < 50 lines
• Cyclomatic Complexity: Functions have complexity < 10

Security

• Authentication: Protected endpoints require auth
• Authorization: Users can only access their own data
• Input Sanitization: SQL injection, XSS prevented
• Secrets Management: No hardcoded credentials or API keys
• Encryption: Sensitive data encrypted at rest and in transit
• Rate Limiting: Endpoints protected from abuse

---

Quick Start Guide

For Reviewers:

1. Read PR description and understand intent
2. Check that automated checks pass
3. Do high-level review (architecture, approach)
4. Do detailed review (logic, edge cases, tests)
5. Use conventional comments for clear communication
6. Provide decision: Approve, Comment, or Request Changes

For Authors:

1. Write clear PR description
2. Perform self-review before requesting review
3. Ensure all automated checks pass
4. Keep PR focused and reasonably sized (< 400 lines)
5. Respond to feedback promptly and respectfully
6. Make requested changes or explain reasoning

---

Skill Version: 2.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-01-08 Maintained by: AI Agent Hub Team

Related Skills

• ork:architecture-patterns - Enforce testing and architectural best practices during code review
• security-scanning - Automated security checks to complement manual review
• ork:testing-unit - Unit testing patterns to verify during review

Rules

Each category has individual rule files in rules/ loaded on-demand:

Category	Rule	Impact	Key Pattern
TypeScript Quality	rules/typescript-quality.md	HIGH	No any, Zod validation, exhaustive switches, React 19
Python Quality	rules/python-quality.md	HIGH	Pydantic v2, ruff, mypy strict, async timeouts
Security Baseline	rules/security-baseline.md	CRITICAL	No secrets, auth on endpoints, input validation
Linting	rules/linting-biome-setup.md	HIGH	Biome setup, ESLint migration, gradual adoption
Linting	rules/linting-biome-rules.md	HIGH	Biome config, type-aware rules, CI integration

Total: 5 rules across 4 categories

Available Scripts

• scripts/review-pr.md - Dynamic PR review with auto-fetched GitHub data

  • Auto-fetches: PR title, author, state, changed files, diff stats, comments count
  • Usage: /ork:review-pr [PR-number]
  • Requires: GitHub CLI (gh)
  • Uses $ARGUMENTS and !command for live PR data

• assets/review-feedback-template.md - Static review feedback template

• assets/pr-template.md - PR description template