# Magento2 Code Review

> This skill should be used when the user asks to "review this PR/MR", "review this merge request", "review this module", "audit this module before merge", "review this theme", "audit this theme PR", or wants a "full review before release". Orchestrates a PR/MR, module, theme, or full-project code review by running the QA trio (magento2-linter, magento2-security-scan, magento2-performance-audit) and magento2-dev-core's anti-pattern checks at the right scope, then merges their findings into one report using a shared severity scale and stable finding codes. DEPENDENT on magento2-dev-core; invokes magento2-linter, magento2-security-scan, and magento2-performance-audit as needed for the chosen scope.

- Skill: `ddtcorex/magento2-code-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add ddtcorex/magento2-code-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ddtcorex/magento2-code-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Security
- Author: ddtcorex (https://skillmd.com/u/ddtcorex)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ddtcorex/magento2-code-review

---


# Magento 2 Code Review

Orchestrates a review at one of four scopes — PR/MR, module, theme, or whole
project — by calling the existing QA trio and `magento2-dev-core` at the
right scope, then merging their output into one report with one severity
scale. This skill does not reimplement any check the trio already owns.

## Related Skills

**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** Load `magento2-dev-core` first — its
`references/severity-and-codes.md` defines the severity scale and finding
codes this skill's report uses.

Invokes `magento2-linter` (style/static analysis), `magento2-security-scan`
(vulnerability scanning), and `magento2-performance-audit` (runtime/
infrastructure) at whichever scope is in play — see "Scope modes" below.
Theme scope additionally cross-references `magento2-hyva-dev` (CSP) and
`magento2-frontend-dev` (Luma build/verify); it does not duplicate their
content. Together with the trio, this forms the "QA quartet" — the four
skills expected to run before a release.

## Scope modes

| Mode | Trigger phrase example | File list source |
|---|---|---|
| Full path | "review this module/project" | module/theme/`app/code` path, as today |
| Explicit file list | caller already knows which files | passed straight through |
| Local git diff | "review this PR", branch already checked out | `git diff` against a base ref |
| Remote fetch | "review MR !123 before I check it out" | On DSH: `gitlab_get_mr_diff` (+ `gitlab_list_own_review_threads`, `gitlab_post_inline_comment`) in one call. Elsewhere: GitHub MCP (`pull_request_read`, preferred for GitHub) / `glab mr diff` / `gh pr diff` — **text-pattern checks only**, see below |

> **On DSH:** call `maestro_review_scope_split {diffStats:{files,addedLinesPerFile}, mode}` → {split:{quick,deep},reason,estimatedSavingsTokens}. Run quick checks only on quick files, full deep only on deep; inject reason into prompt.
> **Otherwise:** apply same extension/path table by hand and note split in review header.

Full mechanics, exact commands, and the remote-fetch limitation:
`references/scope-modes.md`.

> **Govard audit for PR/MR:** prefer `govard audit run --checks lint --mode project --scope diff --base auto --format json`
> (auto-detects base via `git merge-base HEAD origin/HEAD` || `gh pr view --json baseRefName`); `--provider` is an alias for `--lint-provider`, and `--allow-xdebug` is required when `stack.features.xdebug: true`.

## Workflow

1. Determine scope (ask if ambiguous — a bare "review this" with no target
   and no diff in the working tree is not enough to guess from).
2. Resolve the scope to a file list per `references/scope-modes.md`.
3. Run `magento2-security-scan` against that file list (see its own
   "Scoping" section for how it accepts a list vs. a path) — its
   text-pattern greps are genuinely file-scoped. `magento2-linter`'s native
   gate is not: the file list does **not** flow into `govard audit run` —
   that command has no file-list or changed-lines argument, and its finest
   granularity is a whole module (`module_in_project`) or the whole project
   (`project`); `govard audit diff --base <ref>` records the base ref but
   still analyzes the full target (`effective_scope: project`). So at PR/MR
   scope, invoke `magento2-linter`'s native run at whatever target mode it
   resolves to and pick the PHP matrix/provider per its "Govard-Native Lint
   Audit Is the Real Gate" section — don't restate that policy here —
   preserve the `govard audit run` session and run IDs it returns, and then
   split its findings into diff-introduced vs. pre-existing per
   `references/scope-modes.md`'s "Local git diff" guidance: report a
   pre-existing violation in a touched file separately, and don't block the
   PR/MR on legacy debt the diff didn't create. The same file list still
   feeds `magento2-linter`'s bare-tool fast pre-check (its own "Scoping"
   section) — that's a local sanity check, not a substitute for the native
   run's findings. For a repeat review of the same scope (e.g. re-checking
   after fixes), rerun the exact prior session
   (`govard audit rerun --session <session-id>`, per that skill's "Caching,
   rerun identity, and read-only source") before comparing findings — a
   fresh `govard audit run` starts an unrelated session, not a comparable
   one. `magento2-security-scan`'s Authentication & Authorization, Data
   Exposure, and CSP Configuration checks are environment-level, not
   file-scoped — see its "Environment-level checks — scope boundary": they
   run once per audit at project/module/theme scope (never per file) and
   are skipped entirely at PR/MR scope (no live environment to query).
4. Run the performance/theme checks applicable to scope — PR/MR scope is
   **not** exempt, it always gets the static/file-scoped subset (never zero
   performance/theme coverage); project/module scope additionally gets the
   live/infra steps; theme scope runs the full routing in
   `references/theme-audit-checks.md` instead of the 9-step audit. Full
   split of which checks are static vs. live: `references/scope-modes.md`'s
   "Performance/theme checks by scope".
5. If the file list touches `di.xml` (including a `<preference>` addition),
   `events.xml`, a `Plugin/` class, or an `Observer/` class, run the
   conflict check in `references/plugin-observer-conflict-check.md` — it
   now also covers preference conflicts (`M2-ARCH-008`), not just
   plugin/observer ones.
6. Merge every finding into the report template below, using
   `magento2-dev-core/references/severity-and-codes.md` — map to an existing
   code before minting a new one.
7. **Self-verification gate (mandatory, before presenting the report):** the
   Summary table's per-severity counts must equal the number of findings
   actually listed below it — recount by hand if they don't match, the same
   discipline `magento2-performance-audit` already requires of its own
   report.

## Report template

```markdown
## Code Review Report

**Scope**: [PR #123 / app/code/Vendor/Module / Vendor/theme / full project]
**Mode**: [full path / file list / local git diff / remote fetch]

### Summary

| Severity | Count |
|---|---|
| Critical | N |
| High | N |
| Medium | N |
| Low | N |

### Findings

- **[Code]** [severity] — `file:line` — [one-line description] — fix: [what to change]

### Coverage note

[If mode=remote fetch: state explicitly that PHPStan/PHPMD did not run —
text-pattern checks only. If scope is PR/MR, list which live/infra
performance/theme steps from `references/scope-modes.md`'s "Performance/
theme checks by scope" did not run and why, and confirm
`magento2-security-scan`'s environment-level checks (Authentication &
Authorization, Data Exposure, CSP Configuration) were skipped for the same
reason. If any trio member's step was skipped, say `Skipped: <reason>` here
rather than omitting it.]
```