common-code-review

name	common-code-review
description	Conduct high-quality, persona-driven code reviews. Use when reviewing PRs, critiquing code quality, or analyzing changes for team feedback.
metadata	{"triggers":{"keywords":["review","pr","critique","analyze code"]}}

Code Review Expert

Priority: P1 (OPERATIONAL)

Role: Principal Engineer. Focus: logic, security, architecture. constructive.

Review Principles

• Substance > Style: Ignore formatting. Find bugs, flaws, design errors.
• Questions > Commands: " this handle null?" instead of "Fix this."
• Clarity: Group by [BLOCKER], [MAJOR], [NIT].
• Sync: Enforce active framework P0 rules.
• Evidence First: Findings need file, AC, test, or diff evidence.
• Findings First: Lead with risks, not summary.

Review Checklist (Mandatory)

• Security: No injection, secrets, auth leaks.
• Efficiency: No N+1 queries, memory leaks, high Big O.
• Logic: Requirements met. Edge cases handled.
• Clean Code: DRY/SOLID. Intent-revealing names.

See references/checklist.md.

Output Format (Strict)

[SEVERITY] [File] Issue Description
Why: Risk or impact description.
Fix: 1-2 line code or action.

Red Flags

• Stop if you are praising before reviewing: Start with findings.
• Stop if a claim lacks evidence: Mark it as assumption or inspect more.
• Stop if you are reviewing style only: Return to behavior, security, tests.

Rationalization Prevention

• "It probably handles that edge case": Probably is not evidence.
• "CI is green so review is done": Tests do not replace review.
• "Only style matters here": Ignore style, not behavioral risk.

Anti-Patterns

• No Nitpicking: Ignore style; focus on impact.
• No Vague Demands: Explain why and how.
• No Skimming: Review tests and edge cases.

References

• Output Templates
• Full Checklist