Code Review

PyPTO Code Review Skill

Overview

This skill provides comprehensive code review guidelines for the PyPTO project, checking code quality, documentation alignment, and cross-layer consistency.

How to Use

When you need to perform a code review:

1. Read the agent instructions at .claude/agents/code-review/AGENT.md
2. Invoke the Task tool with subagent_type="generalPurpose" and include the agent instructions
3. The agent will analyze changes and provide feedback using the guidelines below

Review Process

1. Get changes: Run git diff to see all staged and unstaged changes
2. Analyze each file against the review checklist below
3. Check documentation alignment: Ensure docs match code changes
4. Verify cross-layer consistency: Check C++, Python bindings, and type stubs
5. Report findings: Provide clear, actionable feedback

Review Checklist

1. Code Quality

• Follows project style and conventions
• No debug code or commented sections
• No TODOs/FIXMEs unless documented
• Proper use of CHECK vs INTERNAL_CHECK
• PyPTO exceptions (not C++ exceptions)
• Clear, descriptive names
• Appropriate comments for complex logic
• Linter errors fixed (not suppressed)

2. Python Style (see python-style.md for full details)

• @overload used for functions with multiple distinct call signatures (not Union)
• Modern type syntax: list[int], dict[str, Any] (not List, Dict)
• f-strings for all string formatting (no .format() or %)
• Google-style docstrings (Args/Returns/Raises)
• Type hints on all public API parameters and return types

3. Documentation Alignment

• Documentation reflects code changes
• Examples in docs still work
• Documentation files ≤500 lines (split if >700 lines)
• AI rules/skills/agents ≤200 lines
• C++ implementation matches Python bindings
• Type stubs (.pyi) match actual API
• Docstrings complete and accurate
• Referenced files still exist

See documentation-length.md for length guidelines

4. Testing Standards

• Tests use pytest (not unittest.TestCase)
• All test verification uses assert (not print)
• No unittest imports (unittest.TestCase, self.assertEqual, self.assertRaises)
• Test files are located exclusively in the tests/ directory
• pytest fixtures for setup/teardown (not setUp()/tearDown())
• pytest.raises() for exception testing

5. Commit Content

• Only relevant changes included
• No build artifacts (build/, *.o, *.so)
• No sensitive information (tokens, keys, absolute paths)
• No temporary files or ad-hoc/example scripts
• No AI co-author lines (Co-Authored-By: Claude, etc.)
• Changes are cohesive and related

Cross-Layer Consistency

When APIs change, all three layers must be updated together. See cross-layer-sync.md for examples and naming conventions.

Quick check:

• C++ headers (include/pypto/)
• Python bindings (python/bindings/) — snake_case method names
• Type stubs (python/pypto/pypto_core/) — signatures match, @overload where needed

Common Issues to Flag

• Debug code: std::cout << "DEBUG", print() left in, // TODO: fix later
• Wrong error macro: CHECK for internal invariants (use INTERNAL_CHECK), or vice versa
• C++ exceptions: throw std::runtime_error(...) instead of pypto::ValueError
• Missing bindings: C++ method added but no Python binding or type stub
• Union instead of @overload: Function with distinct call patterns uses Union args
• Legacy type syntax: List[int], Dict[str, Any] instead of list[int], dict[str, Any]
• Outdated docs: API changed but documentation shows old usage
• Build artifacts: build/, __pycache__/, *.pyc in staged files
• unittest usage: unittest.TestCase, self.assertEqual(), self.assertRaises() instead of pytest
• Print-style testing: print(result) instead of assert result == expected in tests
• AI co-author: Co-Authored-By: Claude or similar lines in commits
• Hardcoded paths: Absolute paths like /home/user/... instead of relative paths
• Vague error messages: raise ValueError("Invalid") without context

Output Format

Provide your review as:

## Code Review Summary

**Status:** ✅ PASS / ⚠️ WARNINGS / ❌ FAIL

### Issues Found

[List any issues by category: Code Quality, Documentation, Cross-Layer, etc.]

### Recommendations

[Specific actions to fix issues]

### Approved Items

[List what looks good]

Decision Criteria

PASS: No critical issues, minor suggestions only WARNINGS: Non-critical issues that should be addressed but don't block commit FAIL: Critical issues that must be fixed before committing

Related Skills

• testing - Build and test verification (can run in parallel with code review)
• git-commit - Complete commit workflow