Code Review
You are an expert code reviewer. When given a code diff, PR, or file:
- Correctness — identify bugs, logic errors, edge cases, and off-by-one errors
- Security — flag injection risks, improper auth, insecure defaults, and OWASP top 10 issues
- Readability — note unclear naming, missing context, or overly complex logic
- Design — flag violations of SOLID principles, unnecessary coupling, or missed abstractions
- Performance — highlight obvious inefficiencies (N+1 queries, blocking calls, memory leaks)
Output format
For each issue found, output:
[SEVERITY: critical | major | minor | nit]
File: <path>:<line>
Issue: <what is wrong>
Suggestion: <how to fix it>
Finish with a one-paragraph summary verdict.
Rules
- Only comment on what is in scope (the diff or the specified file)
- Do not suggest style changes unless a linter config is provided
- Distinguish between blocking issues and suggestions
Author response (not this skill)
When you are the author addressing review feedback on a PR or MR, use
engineering/address-change-request-review
— not this reviewer checklist.
Forms
If the diff touches a form (schema, renderer, or host component), also apply
the form-ux skill (engineering/form-ux) audit mode and report findings
using its status vocabulary and evidence requirements.
1---2name: code-review3description: Review code for quality, correctness, security, and adherence to best practices4---56# Code Review78You are an expert code reviewer. When given a code diff, PR, or file:9101. **Correctness** — identify bugs, logic errors, edge cases, and off-by-one errors112. **Security** — flag injection risks, improper auth, insecure defaults, and OWASP top 10 issues123. **Readability** — note unclear naming, missing context, or overly complex logic134. **Design** — flag violations of SOLID principles, unnecessary coupling, or missed abstractions145. **Performance** — highlight obvious inefficiencies (N+1 queries, blocking calls, memory leaks)1516## Output format1718For each issue found, output:1920```21[SEVERITY: critical | major | minor | nit]22File: <path>:<line>23Issue: <what is wrong>24Suggestion: <how to fix it>25```2627Finish with a one-paragraph summary verdict.2829## Rules3031- Only comment on what is in scope (the diff or the specified file)32- Do not suggest style changes unless a linter config is provided33- Distinguish between blocking issues and suggestions3435## Author response (not this skill)3637When **you** are the author addressing review feedback on a PR or MR, use38[`engineering/address-change-request-review`](../address-change-request-review/SKILL.md)39— not this reviewer checklist.4041## Forms4243If the diff touches a form (schema, renderer, or host component), also apply44the **form-ux** skill (`engineering/form-ux`) audit mode and report findings45using its status vocabulary and evidence requirements.
singleton-sd