Code Reviewer

Code Reviewer

Overview

Perform structured code reviews that identify bugs, security issues, performance problems, and maintainability concerns. Provides prioritized, actionable feedback with specific fix suggestions.

Instructions

When a user asks you to review code, a file, a diff, or a pull request, follow this process:

Step 1: Understand the context

Before reviewing, determine:

• What does this code do? (feature, bugfix, refactor)
• What language and framework is it using?
• Are there tests included?
• Is this a full file or a diff/patch?

Read surrounding files if needed to understand the broader codebase context.

Step 2: Review using this checklist

Evaluate the code against each category in order of severity:

Correctness (Critical)

• Logic errors, off-by-one mistakes, wrong conditions
• Unhandled null/undefined/empty cases
• Race conditions or concurrency issues
• Incorrect error handling (swallowed exceptions, wrong error types)
• Missing input validation

Security (Critical)

• SQL injection, XSS, command injection
• Hardcoded secrets, API keys, passwords
• Improper authentication/authorization checks
• Unsafe deserialization, path traversal
• Missing rate limiting on public endpoints

Performance (High)

• N+1 queries in database loops
• Unnecessary re-renders in UI components
• Missing indexes for frequent queries
• Unbounded memory growth (loading entire datasets)
• Blocking operations on the main thread

Reliability (High)

• Missing error handling for external calls (network, file I/O)
• No retry logic for transient failures
• Missing timeouts on HTTP requests
• Resource leaks (unclosed connections, file handles)

Readability (Medium)

• Unclear variable or function names
• Functions doing too many things (> 30 lines is a smell)
• Deeply nested conditionals (> 3 levels)
• Missing or misleading comments
• Inconsistent naming conventions

Testing (Medium)

• Missing tests for new logic
• Tests that do not assert meaningful behavior
• Missing edge case coverage
• Brittle tests coupled to implementation details

Step 3: Format the review

Organize findings by severity. For each issue:

### [SEVERITY] Category: Brief title

**File:** `path/to/file.ext` line XX-YY

**Issue:** What is wrong and why it matters.

**Suggestion:**
\`\`\`language
// Suggested fix
\`\`\`

Severity levels: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW

Step 4: Provide a summary

End with:

• Overall assessment (approve, request changes, or needs discussion)
• Count of issues by severity
• Top 3 things to fix before merging

Examples

Example 1: Review a Node.js API endpoint

User request: "Review this Express route handler"

Code submitted:

app.post('/users', async (req, res) => {
  const { name, email, role } = req.body;
  const user = await db.query(
    `INSERT INTO users (name, email, role) VALUES ('${name}', '${email}', '${role}')`
  );
  res.json(user);
});

Review output:

### CRITICAL Security: SQL Injection vulnerability

**File:** routes/users.js line 2-5

**Issue:** User input is interpolated directly into the SQL query string.
An attacker can inject arbitrary SQL via the name, email, or role fields.

**Suggestion:**
    const user = await db.query(
      'INSERT INTO users (name, email, role) VALUES ($1, $2, $3)',
      [name, email, role]
    );

### CRITICAL Security: No input validation

**File:** routes/users.js line 2

**Issue:** Request body fields are used without validation. Missing or
malformed data will cause database errors or store invalid records.

**Suggestion:**
    if (!name || !email || !email.includes('@')) {
      return res.status(400).json({ error: 'Name and valid email required' });
    }
    const allowedRoles = ['user', 'admin', 'editor'];
    if (!allowedRoles.includes(role)) {
      return res.status(400).json({ error: 'Invalid role' });
    }

### HIGH Reliability: No error handling

**File:** routes/users.js line 3-5

**Issue:** If the database query fails, the error propagates as an
unhandled promise rejection, crashing the process or returning a 500
with a stack trace.

**Suggestion:**
    try {
      const user = await db.query(...);
      res.status(201).json(user);
    } catch (err) {
      console.error('Failed to create user:', err);
      res.status(500).json({ error: 'Failed to create user' });
    }

Summary: REQUEST CHANGES
- Critical: 2, High: 1, Medium: 0
- Fix SQL injection and add input validation before merging

Example 2: Review a React component

User request: "Review this component for any issues"

Code submitted:

function UserList({ users }) {
  const [search, setSearch] = useState('');

  const filtered = users.filter(u =>
    u.name.toLowerCase().includes(search.toLowerCase())
  );

  return (
    <div>
      <input => setSearch(e.target.value)} />
      {filtered.map(user => (
        <div>{user.name} - {user.email}</div>
      ))}
    </div>
  );
}

Review output:

### MEDIUM Performance: Filtering runs on every render

**Issue:** The filter operation recalculates on every render, even when
unrelated state changes. For large lists this causes jank.

**Suggestion:**
    const filtered = useMemo(() =>
      users.filter(u =>
        u.name.toLowerCase().includes(search.toLowerCase())
      ), [users, search]);

### MEDIUM Readability: Missing key prop on list items

**Issue:** React requires a unique key prop on list items for efficient
reconciliation. Missing keys cause incorrect re-renders and warnings.

**Suggestion:**
    {filtered.map(user => (
      <div key={user.id}>{user.name} - {user.email}</div>
    ))}

### LOW Readability: Missing input label and placeholder

**Issue:** The search input has no label or placeholder, making it
unclear what the input is for and inaccessible to screen readers.

**Suggestion:**
    <label htmlFor="user-search">Search users</label>
    <input
      id="user-search"
      placeholder="Search by name..."
      => setSearch(e.target.value)}
    />

Summary: APPROVE with suggestions
- Critical: 0, High: 0, Medium: 2, Low: 1
- Add key prop and useMemo before merging

Guidelines

• Focus on issues that matter. Do not nitpick formatting if there is a linter configured.
• Always explain WHY something is a problem, not just what to change.
• Provide concrete fix suggestions, not just "this could be improved."
• Acknowledge what the code does well. Reviews should not be exclusively negative.
• When reviewing diffs, focus on changed lines but check context for integration issues.
• For large PRs (500+ lines), start with an architectural overview before line-by-line review.
• If you are unsure about a finding, say so. Do not present uncertain issues as definitive.
• Prioritize: fix all CRITICALs, fix HIGH before merge, MEDIUM/LOW can be follow-up tasks.