code-reviewer

name	code-reviewer
description	High-signal code review workflow for pull requests and patches: correctness, readability, API/UX, performance, security, and maintainability. Use when reviewing diffs/PRs, writing review comments, proposing fixes, or producing a structured review report with actionable follow-ups.

Code Reviewer

Give reviews that help the author ship safely and quickly.

Quick Start

1. Understand intent: what’s the user-facing / system-facing change and why?
2. Review in this order:
   • Correctness (edge cases, invariants, error handling)
   • Safety (security + data handling + secrets)
   • Maintainability (structure, naming, interfaces)
   • Performance (hot paths, I/O, allocations, DB queries)
   • Tests (do they fail before the fix? do they cover the right behavior?)
3. Leave comments that are:
   • Actionable (what to change) + why (risk/benefit) + scope (must vs nice-to-have)

Large diff triage (use when the change is big)

• Start with the entrypoints and high-risk files (auth, payments, data writes).
• Identify invariants the change must preserve, then hunt for violations.
• Skim for mechanical changes and collapse them; focus deep review on behavioral deltas.

When to request changes

• Bugs or correctness issues that can ship user-impacting failures.
• Security/privacy regressions or data handling gaps.
• Missing or inadequate tests for new behavior or fixed bugs.

Output format (recommended)

• Summary: what the change does
• Major issues: must-fix items (blockers)
• Minor suggestions: improvements / nits
• Test plan: how to validate locally/CI
• Follow-ups: tickets/cleanup that shouldn’t block merge

Optional tool: generate a review report from git diff

From the repo you’re reviewing:

python ~/.codex/skills/code-reviewer/scripts/review_diff.py --base origin/main --out /tmp/review.md

References

• Review checklist and comment style: references/review-checklist.md