Code Review Standards

Code Review Standards

Purpose

Define standards for effective code reviews that improve code quality, share knowledge, and maintain team velocity.

Goals:

• Quality gate: catch bugs, security issues, and design problems early
• Knowledge sharing: spread understanding of the codebase across the team
• Consistency: maintain coding standards and architectural patterns
• Velocity: provide timely, actionable feedback

When to use

Use the code-review-standards skill when:

• Reviewing pull requests / merge requests
• Preparing code for review (self-review checklist)
• Setting up team review guidelines
• Resolving review disagreements

Inputs

• Code diff to review
• PR description and context
• Related requirements or design docs (if applicable)
• Team coding standards and conventions

Outputs

• Review comments with clear, actionable feedback
• Approval/request-changes decision with rationale
• Knowledge transfer notes (if significant patterns discovered)

Steps

1. Read the change summary and identify the intent, blast radius, and any high-risk areas.
2. Review correctness first (behavior, edge cases, error handling, and failure modes).
3. Review maintainability next (structure, naming, tests, and clarity of intent).
4. Classify feedback by severity (blocker / major / minor / nit) and make each comment actionable.
5. Confirm verification evidence exists (tests, logs, screenshots, or a reproducible manual check), or request it explicitly.

Review Scope (MUST check)

Correctness

• Does the code do what it claims to do?
• Are edge cases handled?
• Are error conditions handled appropriately?

Security

• No hardcoded secrets or credentials
• Input validation present for external data
• No obvious injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, etc.)
• Proper authorization checks

Performance

• No obvious N+1 queries or unnecessary loops
• Appropriate use of caching/memoization
• No blocking operations in hot paths

Maintainability

• Code is readable and self-documenting
• Functions/methods have single responsibility
• No unnecessary complexity
• Appropriate abstraction level

Testing

• New functionality has tests
• Tests cover happy path and key edge cases
• Tests are readable and maintainable

Feedback Quality Rules (MUST)

Be Specific

• ❌ "Confusing"
• ✅ "The variable name x doesn't convey its purpose. Consider userCount or activeUsers"

Be Constructive

• ❌ "Incorrect"
• ✅ "The current approach may cause issues when X happens. Consider using Y pattern instead"

Distinguish Severity

Use prefixes to clarify feedback importance:

• [blocker] - Must fix before merge
• [suggestion] - Nice to have, author decides
• [question] - Seeking clarification
• [nit] - Minor style issue, optional fix

Provide Context

• Explain why, not just what
• Link to relevant documentation or examples
• Mention if something is a team convention vs personal preference

Approval Criteria (SHOULD)

Approve when:

• All blockers are resolved
• Code meets minimum quality bar
• Tests pass and coverage is acceptable
• No security concerns

Request changes when:

• Blockers exist that must be addressed
• Security vulnerabilities identified
• Critical functionality missing or broken

Self-Review Checklist (Before Requesting Review)

• Code compiles and tests pass locally
• PR description explains what and why
• No commented-out code or debug statements
• No unrelated changes mixed in
• Sensitive data removed (secrets, personal info)
• Documentation updated if needed

Common Review Patterns

The "LGTM" Review

• Avoid rubber-stamp approvals
• Even quick reviews should note what was checked

The Nitpick Storm

• Batch minor issues together
• Mark clearly as [nit] or [suggestion]
• Don't block on style-only issues

The Architecture Debate

• Large design discussions belong in design docs, not PR comments
• If significant rework needed, discuss synchronously first

The Stale Review

• Reviews SHOULD be completed within 1 business day
• If blocked, communicate timeline to author

Boundaries

• Do NOT approve without actually reading the code
• Do NOT block on personal style preferences that aren't team standards
• Do NOT leave vague feedback without actionable suggestions
• Do NOT let reviews become gatekeeping or power dynamics

Verification

Review quality checklist:

• Feedback is specific and actionable
• Severity is clearly indicated
• Blockers are justified with reasoning
• Response time is reasonable

Included assets

None.

Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.