Code Review Skill

Follow this process for comprehensive code reviews.

Step 1: Scope Selection

Ask the user what to review:

What would you like me to review?
1. Staged changes
2. Unstaged changes (working directory)
3. All uncommitted (staged + unstaged)
4. Specific commit (enter hash)
5. Branch as PR (compare to base branch)
6. Custom diff range

Wait for user selection before proceeding.

Step 2: Gather Changes

Based on selection, run appropriate git command:

• Staged: git diff --cached
• Unstaged: git diff
• All uncommitted: git diff HEAD
• Commit: git show <hash>
• Branch as PR: git diff <base>...<branch> (ask for base branch if needed)
• Custom: git diff <range> (ask for range)

Also run git diff --cached --name-only or equivalent to get list of changed files.

Step 3: Auto-Detect Tech Stack

Check for presence of:

• package.json / package-lock.json / yarn.lock → Node.js/JavaScript
• requirements.txt / Pipfile / pyproject.toml → Python
• go.mod → Go
• Cargo.toml → Rust
• Gemfile → Ruby
• Dockerfile / docker-compose.yml → Docker
• *.tf / *.tfvars → Terraform
• *.yaml / *.yml in k8s patterns → Kubernetes
• ansible/ / playbook.yml → Ansible
• .github/workflows/ → GitHub Actions

Note detected stack for context-aware analysis.

Step 4: Run Available Scanners

Execute scanners if tools exist (skip silently if not installed):

Summarize scanner findings (if any) in the output.

Step 5: Claude Analysis

Analyze the diff for ALL categories below. Be pragmatic—flag likely issues, skip obvious false positives.

Assume code will be published to a public repository unless stated otherwise.

5.1 Errors & Deprecations

• Syntax errors, typos in code
• Deprecated APIs, functions, or patterns
• Breaking changes in dependencies
• Incompatible version usage

5.2 Best Practices (Stack-Specific)

• Code style and conventions for detected stack
• Idiomatic patterns
• Proper error propagation
• Resource cleanup (file handles, connections)
• Async/await correctness
• Type safety issues

5.3 Security Analysis

• Secrets & Credentials:

  • Hardcoded API keys, tokens, passwords
  • Connection strings with credentials
  • Private keys, certificates
  • .env files or secrets in code

• Container Security:

  • Running as root (USER directive missing)
  • Privileged mode
  • Exposed sensitive mounts
  • Unverified base images
  • Missing health checks

• Sensitive Data Exposure:

  • PII in logs or comments
  • Debug endpoints enabled
  • Verbose error messages exposing internals
  • Sensitive data in URLs/query params

• Input Handling (where obvious):

  • Command injection vectors
  • Path traversal risks
  • SQL injection (obvious patterns)
  • XSS in templates

5.4 Dependency Vulnerabilities

• Known vulnerable package versions
• Outdated dependencies with security patches
• Unpinned versions allowing vulnerable upgrades
• Suspicious or typosquatted package names

5.5 Performance Anti-Patterns

• N+1 query patterns
• Synchronous operations in async contexts
• Unbounded loops or recursion
• Memory leaks (unclosed resources, growing caches)
• Missing pagination on large datasets
• Blocking I/O in hot paths

5.6 Infrastructure Drift Risks

• Hardcoded values that should be variables
• Environment-specific configs in shared code
• Missing or inconsistent resource tags
• State management concerns (Terraform)
• Configuration that diverges from IaC patterns

Step 6: Output Format

Present findings grouped by severity, with file and line references:

## Scanner Results
[Summary of any automated scanner findings, or "No issues detected" / "Scanners not available"]

## Code Review Findings

### CRITICAL
- `path/to/file.py:42` - Hardcoded AWS secret key detected
- `docker-compose.yml:15` - Database password in plain text

### HIGH
- `Dockerfile:1` - Container runs as root (no USER directive)
- `src/db.js:88` - SQL query built with string concatenation

### MEDIUM
- `utils.js:23` - Deprecated `Buffer()` constructor, use `Buffer.from()`
- `main.tf:45` - AWS provider version unpinned

### LOW
- `config.py:12` - Consider using environment variable for timeout value
- `k8s/deployment.yaml:8` - Missing resource limits

## Summary
- Critical: X
- High: X
- Medium: X
- Low: X

[Brief recommendation on whether changes are safe to merge]

## Review Score: X/20
[Brief justification based on code quality, security, and merge readiness]

Guidelines

• Be pragmatic: Don't flag theoretical issues. Focus on likely problems.
• Context matters: Consider the file's purpose before flagging.
• Actionable feedback: Every finding should have a clear fix.
• No false praise: Skip "looks good" comments. Only report issues.
• Public repo assumption: Treat all secrets/sensitive data as critical.