Code Reviewer

Overview

This skill performs comprehensive code reviews of implemented features, checking for requirements compliance, code quality, security issues, performance concerns, and testing readiness. It produces structured review reports that guide improvements and ensure code meets project standards.

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• Feature implementation is complete
• Ready to review code before testing
• Need to verify requirements compliance
• Want to catch issues before they reach testing
• Preparing code for team review or merge

Workflow

Step 1: Prepare for Review

Load Context:

1. Read the requirements document from context/ directory
2. Review implementation notes if available
3. Understand acceptance criteria and testing requirements

Identify Changed Files:

1. Use git diff or git status to see modified files
2. Review new files created for the feature
3. Check for related files that might be affected

Step 2: Conduct Code Review

Review code systematically using the checklist in references/review_checklist.md.

Requirements Compliance Review

Check Against Requirements:

• Verify all features from requirements are implemented
• Confirm acceptance criteria are met
• Ensure no scope creep (only required features)
• Validate edge cases are handled

Document Findings:

• List each requirement and its compliance status
• Note any missing or incomplete features
• Highlight any deviations from requirements

Code Quality Review

Readability:

• Clear, descriptive naming
• Self-documenting code
• Appropriate comments for complex logic
• Consistent formatting
• No debug statements or commented code

Structure:

• Single-purpose functions
• Proper separation of concerns
• DRY principle followed
• Appropriate abstractions
• Reasonable file sizes

TypeScript (if applicable):

• Proper type annotations
• No unnecessary any types
• Well-defined interfaces/types
• No type errors or warnings

Best Practices Review

React Patterns (if applicable):

• Correct hook usage
• Proper component lifecycle
• Optimized re-renders
• Appropriate state management
• Effect cleanup

Error Handling:

• All error cases covered
• Meaningful error messages
• Proper logging (Logger, not console)
• No unhandled promises
• Try-catch where needed

Performance:

• No obvious bottlenecks
• Appropriate memoization
• Efficient algorithms
• Lazy loading where beneficial

Security:

• No hardcoded secrets
• Input validation
• XSS prevention
• SQL injection prevention
• Proper auth/authz

Testing Readiness Review

Testability:

• Code structure supports testing
• Dependencies can be mocked
• Pure functions where possible
• Side effects isolated
• Clear test boundaries

Test Cases:

• Identify unit test needs
• Identify integration test needs
• Note edge cases to test
• Document testing priorities

Step 3: Document Review Findings

Create a review report using the template in references/review_template.md.

Report Structure:

1. Summary: Brief overview of changes and overall assessment
2. Requirements Compliance: Checklist with status
3. Code Quality Assessment: Strengths and issues categorized by severity
4. Detailed Review by File: File-by-file analysis with specific issues
5. Security Review: Security-specific findings
6. Performance Review: Performance considerations
7. Testing Readiness: Testability assessment and suggested test cases
8. Recommendations: Categorized action items (must fix, should fix, nice to have)
9. Approval Status: Decision and next steps

Issue Severity Levels:

• 🔴 Critical: Blocks approval, must fix immediately

  • Security vulnerabilities
  • Requirements not met
  • Breaking bugs
  • Major architectural issues

• 🟡 Moderate: Should fix before merge

  • Code quality issues
  • Missing error handling
  • Performance concerns
  • Incomplete features

• 🟢 Minor: Nice to have, can be addressed later

  • Naming improvements
  • Additional comments needed
  • Optimization opportunities
  • Style inconsistencies

Step 4: Save Review Report

Save the review report to context/review-{feature-name}.md.

Naming Convention:

• Match the requirements document name
• Example: requirements-user-auth.md → review-user-auth.md
• Use timestamps if needed: review-user-auth-20250104.md

Step 5: Communicate Findings

Present Summary to User:

1. Overall approval status
2. Number of issues by severity
3. Key strengths
4. Critical issues requiring immediate attention

Decision:

• ✅ Approved: Ready for testing
• ✅ Approved with Comments: Can proceed, minor issues noted
• ❌ Changes Requested: Must address issues before proceeding

Provide Clear Next Steps:

• If approved: Proceed to test generation
• If changes requested: List specific fixes needed
• If approved with comments: Note which issues can be deferred

Step 6: Iterate if Needed

If changes are requested:

1. Wait for developer to address issues
2. Review the fixes
3. Update review report with new findings
4. Approve when ready

Integration with Workflow

This skill is typically used as Step 4 in the development workflow:

1. ✅ Analyze requirements (prompt-enhancer)
2. ✅ Document plan (requirements-documenter)
3. ✅ Implement features (implementation-guide)
4. ➡️ Review code (this skill)
5. Write tests (test-generator)
6. Final review (review-finalizer)

Inputs:

• Requirements document from context/
• Implemented code (changed/new files)
• Implementation notes (if available)

Outputs:

• Review report in context/
• Approval status and recommendations
• Suggested test cases for test-generator

Used By:

• Developer: Addresses review findings
• test-generator: Uses review insights for test creation
• review-finalizer: Confirms issues were resolved

Review Focus Areas

Always Check

1. Requirements Completeness

   • Every requirement implemented
   • No missing features
   • Edge cases covered

2. Security

   • No vulnerabilities
   • Proper input validation
   • Secrets management
   • Auth/authz correct

3. Error Handling

   • All errors caught
   • Meaningful messages
   • Proper logging
   • Graceful degradation

4. Code Structure

   • Clear organization
   • Proper abstractions
   • No duplication
   • Testable design

Project-Specific Checks

Customize references/review_checklist.md for project-specific items:

• Specific coding standards
• Required patterns or abstractions
• Performance requirements
• Accessibility standards
• Team conventions

Best Practices

Do:

• Be thorough but constructive
• Provide specific examples and locations
• Suggest concrete improvements
• Acknowledge good code and patterns
• Prioritize issues by severity
• Link to relevant documentation
• Consider the entire feature, not just individual files
• Think about maintainability

Don't:

• Nitpick style issues (use linters)
• Request changes outside requirements
• Be vague about issues
• Focus only on problems (note strengths too)
• Miss security or performance issues
• Skip the testing readiness assessment
• Forget to check against requirements document

Example Usage

Scenario: Review user authentication implementation

Step 1: Load context

• Read context/requirements-user-auth.md
• Review implemented files: authService.ts, useAuth.ts, LoginForm.tsx

Step 2: Conduct review

• ✅ All requirements met
• 🟡 Missing error handling in one API call
• 🟢 Could add loading state to form
• ✅ Security looks good (tokens, validation)
• ✅ Code is testable

Step 3: Document findings

• Use references/review_template.md
• Fill in all sections
• Categorize issues by severity
• Provide specific line numbers and suggestions

Step 4: Save report

• Save as context/review-user-auth.md

Step 5: Communicate

• Status: Approved with Comments
• 1 moderate issue (missing error handling)
• 1 minor suggestion (loading state)
• Can proceed to testing, address moderate issue soon

Result: Clear, actionable review that guides improvements while allowing progress.

Common Review Patterns

First Implementation

• More thorough review
• Check architectural decisions
• Validate patterns for reusability
• Ensure it sets good precedent

Iterative Feature

• Focus on consistency with existing code
• Check for proper use of abstractions
• Verify patterns match established code

Bug Fix

• Confirm bug is actually fixed
• Check for similar issues elsewhere
• Ensure fix doesn't break other features
• Verify test added to prevent regression

Refactoring

• Verify behavior unchanged
• Check for improved structure
• Ensure no new issues introduced
• Validate tests still pass