Audit Code Review

Code Review Skill

Degree of freedom: MIXED — Phases 1–2 judgment [HIGH freedom]; mandatory pre-review git/docs [LOW freedom — run exactly].

Review this PR or named diff. Repo-wide anti-patterns → audit-code-quality. Bulk transform semantics → audit-codemod-safety.

How to reason

1. Observe — quote the hunk and the surrounding file (not the line alone)
2. Interpret — what breaks, leaks, or duplicates if this merges?
3. Classify — blocking / suggestion / nit / praise
4. Severity — security, data-loss, or break-existing = blocking

Worked example

Observe: new GET /api/invoices/:id returns Invoice.findById(id) with no userId predicate (app/api/invoices/[id]/route.ts in this diff). Interpret: any authenticated caller reads another user's invoice. Classify: blocking (IDOR). Severity: Critical — must fix before merge. Finding: [id]/route.ts | add ownership check | blocking

MANDATORY: Pre-Review Checks [LOW freedom — run exactly]

BEFORE reviewing code, you MUST:

1. Read Relevant Documentation

README.md (project conventions)
src/[domain]/@_[domain]-README.md (domain-specific patterns)
CONTRIBUTING.md (code standards)

2. Understand the Full Change

If reviewing a PR or commit:

git log --oneline -10 # recent context
git diff <base>..HEAD --stat # files changed
git diff <base>..HEAD # full diff

If reviewing a specific file, read the FULL file for context — not just the changed lines.

3. Check for Duplicate Implementations

Use Grep and SemanticSearch to verify:

• Does this code duplicate existing functionality?
• Is there an existing component/service that should have been extended?
• Does this follow established patterns in the codebase?

4. Check Production Impact (Sentry)

If the change touches error-prone code, check if related Sentry issues exist:

sentry:search_issues
{
 "organizationSlug": "<ORG_SLUG>",
 "query": "issues related to <component or function being changed>",
 "projectSlugOrId": "<PROJECT_SLUG>",
 "regionUrl": "<REGION_URL>",
 "limit": 10
}

This reveals: does the code being changed have known production issues? Does this change fix or risk introducing them?

5. Research Current Best Practices (for non-trivial patterns)

If the code uses a pattern you want to verify:

firecrawl:firecrawl_search
{
 "query": "<framework> <pattern> best practice <current year>",
 "limit": 5,
 "sources": [{ "type": "web" }]
}

Review Process [HIGH freedom]

Phase 1: High-Level Assessment

Before line-by-line review:

• What is the purpose of this change?
• Does the approach make sense architecturally?
• Are there simpler alternatives?
• Does this introduce new dependencies? Are they justified?

Phase 2: Detailed Review Checklist

Correctness

• Logic is correct for all expected inputs
• Edge cases handled (null, empty, overflow, concurrent access)
• No obvious bugs (off-by-one, wrong operator, missing await)
• Error handling is full and appropriate
• Async code handles race conditions and cleanup (AbortController, etc.)

Security

• No SQL injection vectors (raw queries with user input)
• No XSS vulnerabilities (dangerouslySetInnerHTML, innerHTML)
• No hardcoded secrets or credentials
• Input validation present on all user-facing endpoints
• Auth/authz properly checked (not just at UI level)
• No sensitive data in logs or error messages

Performance

• No N+1 queries (batching, eager loading)
• No unnecessary loops or repeated computations
• Appropriate data structures (Map vs Object, Set vs Array)
• No memory leaks (event listeners cleaned up, subscriptions unsubscribed)
• React: no unnecessary re-renders (memo, useMemo, useCallback where appropriate)
• Database: queries use indexes, avoid full table scans

Readability

• Clear, descriptive names (functions, variables, types)
• Functions appropriately sized (single responsibility)
• Comments explain "why" not "what" (non-obvious constraints only)
• Consistent with project's existing style

Maintainability

• DRY — no duplicated logic that should be shared
• Single responsibility — each function/component does one thing
• No magic numbers or strings (use constants or enums)
• Types are specific (no any, no overly broad unions)
• Dependencies are appropriate and minimal

Testing

• Tests cover the change (happy path + edge cases)
• Tests are independent and deterministic
• No flaky tests introduced (timeouts, race conditions)
• Test names describe the expected behavior

Duplicate Prevention

• No duplicate components (checked src/components/)
• No duplicate services or hooks
• Extends rather than duplicates existing patterns
• Shared logic extracted to utility/hook when used 2+ times

Feedback Format

Use severity levels:

### Critical (must fix before merge)
**[File:Line]** — [Description]
Why: [Impact if not fixed]
Fix: [Specific suggestion]

### Suggestion (recommended improvement)
**[File:Line]** — [Description]
Why: [Benefit of the change]
Alternative: [How to improve]

### Nitpick (optional, non-blocking)
**[File:Line]** — [Description]

### Praise (good patterns to reinforce)
**[File:Line]** — [What's done well and why]

Blocking vs Non-Blocking

Blocking (must fix)

• Security vulnerabilities
• Data corruption risks
• Breaking existing functionality
• Missing critical error handling
• Performance regressions (measurable)
• Type safety violations (any, unchecked casts)

Non-Blocking (suggestions)

• Better naming or organization
• Missing tests for edge cases
• Documentation gaps
• Minor performance improvements
• Style preferences not covered by linter

Common Patterns to Flag

TypeScript/JavaScript

// BLOCK: any types
const data: any = response;

// BLOCK: unhandled promises
fetchData(); // missing await or .catch()

// BLOCK: implicit type coercion in conditions
if (value) // when value could be 0 or ""

// SUGGEST: magic strings
if (status === 'active') // use constant or enum

React

// BLOCK: missing key in lists
{items.map(item => <Item {...item} />)}

// BLOCK: stale closure in useEffect
useEffect(() => {
 setInterval(() => console.log(count), 1000); // captures stale count
}, []);

// SUGGEST: inline object creation in props
<Component style={{ margin: 10 }} /> // new object each render

Database

-- BLOCK: SQL injection vector
WHERE name = '${userInput}'

-- SUGGEST: missing index
SELECT * FROM orders WHERE user_id = ? -- is user_id indexed?

-- SUGGEST: SELECT *
SELECT * FROM users -- select only needed columns

Self-critique before reporting [LOW freedom — do not skip]

1. Evidenced — File:Line from the diff, not "this could be better"
2. Reproducible — read the full file, not only the hunk
3. Severity justified — blocking = security / data-loss / break / missing critical handling
4. Right owner — repo-wide smells → audit-code-quality; bulk transform → audit-codemod-safety
5. No-false-safety — linter-covered style is not blocking

Review Response Template

## Code Review: [PR Title / File]

### Summary
[1-2 sentence overall assessment — is this ready to merge?]

### Critical (blocking)
[List any must-fix findings]

### Suggestions (recommended)
[List recommended improvements]

### Praise
[Highlight good practices — reinforces positive patterns]

### Questions
[Clarifying questions about intent or design decisions]

### Research Notes
[If patterns were verified via Firecrawl/Context7, note what was confirmed]

Best Practices for Reviewers

DO

• Be specific and actionable — link to the exact line
• Explain the "why" behind every suggestion
• Suggest alternatives, not just problems
• Acknowledge good work — it reinforces good habits
• Ask questions when intent is unclear
• Verify patterns against current best practices (research if unsure)

DON'T

• Block on personal style preferences when a linter exists
• Give vague feedback ("this could be better")
• Ignore the context/constraints the author worked within
• Review only the changed lines — read surrounding code too
• Assume malice — most findings are honest oversights