name	code-quality-review
description	Systematic code review patterns, quality dimensions, anti-pattern detection, and constructive feedback techniques. Use when reviewing code changes, assessing codebase quality, identifying technical debt, or mentoring through reviews. Covers correctness, design, security, performance, and maintainability.

Code Quality Review Methodology

Systematic patterns for reviewing code and providing constructive, actionable feedback that improves both code quality and developer skills.

When to Activate

Reviewing pull requests or merge requests
Assessing overall codebase quality
Identifying and prioritizing technical debt
Mentoring developers through code review
Establishing code review standards for teams
Auditing code for security or compliance

Review Dimensions

Every code review should evaluate these six dimensions:

1. Correctness

Does the code work as intended?

Check	Questions
Functionality	Does it solve the stated problem?
Edge Cases	Are boundary conditions handled?
Error Handling	Are failures gracefully managed?
Data Validation	Are inputs validated at boundaries?
Null Safety	Are null/undefined cases covered?

2. Design

Is the code well-structured?

Check	Questions
Single Responsibility	Does each function/class do one thing?
Abstraction Level	Is complexity hidden appropriately?
Coupling	Are dependencies minimized?
Cohesion	Do related things stay together?
Extensibility	Can it be modified without major changes?

3. Readability

Can others understand this code?

Check	Questions
Naming	Do names reveal intent?
Comments	Is the "why" explained, not the "what"?
Formatting	Is style consistent?
Complexity	Is cyclomatic complexity reasonable (<10)?
Flow	Is control flow straightforward?

4. Security

Is the code secure?

Check	Questions
Input Validation	Are all inputs sanitized?
Authentication	Are auth checks present where needed?
Authorization	Are permissions verified?
Data Exposure	Is sensitive data protected?
Dependencies	Are there known vulnerabilities?

5. Performance

Is the code efficient?

Check	Questions
Algorithmic	Is time complexity appropriate?
Memory	Are allocations reasonable?
I/O	Are database/network calls optimized?
Caching	Is caching used where beneficial?
Concurrency	Are race conditions avoided?

6. Testability

Can this code be tested?

Check	Questions
Test Coverage	Are critical paths tested?
Test Quality	Do tests verify behavior, not implementation?
Mocking	Are external dependencies mockable?
Determinism	Are tests reliable and repeatable?
Edge Cases	Are boundary conditions tested?

Anti-Pattern Catalog

Common code smells and their remediation:

Method-Level Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Detection Signs	Remediation
Long Method	>20 lines, multiple responsibilities	Extract Method
Long Parameter List	>3-4 parameters	Introduce Parameter Object
Duplicate Code	Copy-paste patterns	Extract Method, Template Method
Complex Conditionals	Nested if/else, switch statements	Decompose Conditional, Strategy Pattern
Magic Numbers	Hardcoded values without context	Extract Constant
Dead Code	Unreachable or unused code	Delete it

Class-Level Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Detection Signs	Remediation
God Object	>500 lines, many responsibilities	Extract Class
Data Class	Only getters/setters, no behavior	Move behavior to class
Feature Envy	Method uses another class's data extensively	Move Method
Inappropriate Intimacy	Classes know too much about each other	Move Method, Extract Class
Refused Bequest	Subclass doesn't use inherited behavior	Replace Inheritance with Delegation
Lazy Class	Does too little to justify existence	Inline Class

Architecture-Level Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Detection Signs	Remediation
Circular Dependencies	A depends on B depends on A	Dependency Inversion
Shotgun Surgery	One change requires many file edits	Move Method, Extract Class
Leaky Abstraction	Implementation details exposed	Encapsulate
Premature Optimization	Complex code for unproven performance	Simplify, measure first
Over-Engineering	Abstractions for hypothetical requirements	YAGNI - simplify

Review Prioritization

Focus review effort where it matters most:

Priority 1: Critical (Must Fix)

Security vulnerabilities (injection, auth bypass)
Data loss or corruption risks
Breaking changes to public APIs
Production stability risks

Priority 2: High (Should Fix)

Logic errors affecting functionality
Performance issues in hot paths
Missing error handling for likely failures
Violation of architectural principles

Priority 3: Medium (Consider Fixing)

Code duplication
Missing tests for new code
Naming that reduces clarity
Overly complex conditionals

Priority 4: Low (Nice to Have)

Style inconsistencies
Minor optimization opportunities
Documentation improvements
Refactoring suggestions

Constructive Feedback Patterns

The Feedback Formula

[Observation] + [Why it matters] + [Suggestion] + [Example if helpful]

Good Feedback Examples

# Instead of:
"This is wrong"

# Say:
"This query runs inside a loop (line 45), which could cause N+1
performance issues as the dataset grows. Consider using a batch
query before the loop:

```python
users = User.query.filter(User.id.in_(user_ids)).all()
user_map = {u.id: u for u in users}


```markdown
# Instead of:
"Use better names"

# Say:
"The variable `d` on line 23 would be clearer as `daysSinceLastLogin` -
it helps readers understand the business logic without tracing back
to the assignment."

Feedback Tone Guide

Avoid	Prefer
"You should..."	"Consider..." or "What about..."
"This is wrong"	"This might cause issues because..."
"Why didn't you..."	"Have you considered..."
"Obviously..."	"One approach is..."
"Always/Never do X"	"In this context, X would help because..."

Positive Observations

Include what's done well:

"Nice use of the Strategy pattern here - it makes adding new
payment methods straightforward."

"Good error handling - the retry logic with exponential backoff
is exactly what we need for this flaky API."

"Clean separation of concerns between the validation and persistence logic."

Review Checklists

Quick Review Checklist (< 100 lines)

Code compiles and tests pass
Logic appears correct for stated purpose
No obvious security issues
Naming is clear
No magic numbers or strings

Standard Review Checklist (100-500 lines)

All of the above, plus:

Design follows project patterns
Error handling is appropriate
Tests cover new functionality
No significant duplication
Performance is reasonable

Deep Review Checklist (> 500 lines or critical)