s-hiraoku Code Review
Perform structured, actionable code reviews.
When to Use
- Reviewing a pull request or set of changes
- Evaluating code quality before merging
- Auditing a module for technical debt
- Establishing review standards or checklists
Review Dimensions
Review code across these dimensions, in priority order:
1. Correctness
- Does the code do what it claims?
- Are edge cases handled? (null, empty, overflow, concurrency)
- Are error paths tested?
- Do tests cover the changed behavior?
2. Security
- Input validation at system boundaries
- No secrets in code (API keys, passwords, tokens)
- SQL/command injection prevention
- Proper authentication and authorization checks
- See
security-auditskill for deeper analysis
3. Readability
- Clear naming (variables, functions, classes)
- Functions do one thing
- No deep nesting (max 3 levels)
- Comments explain "why", not "what"
- Consistent style with the surrounding codebase
4. Maintainability
- No unnecessary abstractions
- DRY without over-abstraction (rule of three)
- Dependencies are justified
- Breaking changes are flagged
5. Performance
- Only flag when there is a real concern (hot path, large data, N+1 queries)
- Do not micro-optimize unless the context demands it
Review Output Format
Structure feedback as:
## Review: <PR title or file>
### Must Fix
- [ ] **file.py:42** — [Correctness] Description of the issue and suggested fix
### Should Fix
- [ ] **file.py:78** — [Readability] Description and suggestion
### Consider
- [ ] **file.py:100** — [Performance] Optional improvement
### Positive
- file.py:15 — Good use of context manager for resource cleanup
Severity levels:
| Level | Meaning | Merge? |
|---|---|---|
| Must Fix | Bug, security issue, or broken contract | Block |
| Should Fix | Significant readability/maintainability concern | Request changes |
| Consider | Optional improvement, style preference | Approve with comment |
| Positive | Good patterns worth highlighting | - |
Guidelines
- Be specific - Point to exact lines, suggest concrete alternatives
- Explain why - "This could cause X because Y", not just "change this"
- Separate style from substance - Automate style (linters); review logic manually
- Limit scope - Review what changed, not the entire file (unless asked)
- Acknowledge good work - Include at least one positive observation
- Propose, don't impose - "Consider using X" not "You must use X" (unless it's a Must Fix)