J4flmao Agent Skills Code Review

Code Review

Version: 1.1.0 Author: j4flmao License: MIT

Purpose

Provide systematic, structured code reviews covering correctness, architecture, clarity, performance, security, and tests. Every finding is actionable, prioritized by severity, and anchored to a specific file and line.

Agent Protocol

Trigger

Exact user phrases: "review this code", "code review", "review PR", "check this implementation", "is this code good", "LGTM?", "feedback on code".

Input Context

Before activating, verify:

• The code or diff to review is provided or accessible.
• The language/stack is known.
• The project's coding standards or conventions are available.

Output Artifact

No file output. This skill produces structured review text.

Response Format

Answer exactly:

## Code Review: {file/scope}

### [MUST] {short title}
- **File**: `src/path/file.ts:42`
- **Issue**: {what's wrong}
- **Why**: {impact}
- **Fix**: {suggested approach}

### [SHOULD] {short title}
...

### [CONSIDER] {short title}
...

### Positive
- {what's done well}

No preamble. No postamble. No explanations. No filler/hedging/transitions. Compress output -- why use many token when few do trick. No explanations of what code review is.

Completion Criteria

This skill is complete when:

• All findings are classified with severity [MUST]/[SHOULD]/[CONSIDER].
• Every finding includes exact file and line number.
• At least one positive observation is included for every 3 critical findings.
• No code has been rewritten -- only problems and suggested approaches.

Max Response Length

100 lines or as many as needed to cover all findings in one pass.

Component Architecture / Decision Trees

Severity Classification Decision Tree

Is the finding a correctness bug (wrong behavior)?
  |-- YES --> [MUST] Blocks merge. Can cause production incidents.
  |-- NO  --> Is it a security vulnerability?
        |-- YES --> [MUST] Immediate fix required.
        |-- NO  --> Is it a performance regression (measurable)?
              |-- YES --> Is it likely to affect users in production?
              |     |-- YES --> [SHOULD] Fix before next release.
              |     |-- NO  --> [CONSIDER] Monitor and fix if needed.
              |-- NO  --> Is it an architecture or maintainability concern?
                    |-- YES --> Does it violate established patterns?
                    |     |-- YES --> [SHOULD] Follow project conventions.
                    |     |-- NO  --> [CONSIDER] Improvement suggestion.
                    |-- NO  --> Is it a clarity or naming issue?
                          |-- YES --> Does it block understanding for reviewers?
                          |     |-- YES --> [SHOULD] Rename or clarify.
                          |     |-- NO  --> [CONSIDER] Minor improvement.
                          |-- NO  --> Is it a test quality issue?
                                |-- YES --> Are tests missing for critical paths?
                                |     |-- YES --> [SHOULD] Add critical tests.
                                |     |-- NO  --> [CONSIDER] Expand test coverage.

Review Depth Decision Tree

What is the scope of the change?
  |-- < 50 lines diff --> Full review (all 6 dimensions).
  |-- 50-200 lines --> Full review. Read every line.
  |-- 200-400 lines --> Full review. Focus on changed logic files over config/tests.
  |-- > 400 lines --> Review critical path diff. Flag: "Diff exceeds 400 lines. Focused on core logic changes."
  |     |-- Skip: formatting, comments, whitespace-only diffs.
  |     |-- Flag: large diffs that should be split into multiple PRs.

Is this a new feature or a bug fix?
  |-- New feature --> Heavy on architecture + correctness + test quality.
  |-- Bug fix --> Heavy on correctness + root cause analysis + regression tests.
  |-- Refactor --> Heavy on architecture + performance (verify no regression).
  |-- Dependency update --> Heavy on security + compatibility + changelog diff.

Does the code touch a critical path (auth, payments, data layer)?
  |-- YES --> Security + correctness = highest priority. MUST findings here are blockers.
  |-- NO  --> Standard review weighting.

Framework/Language-Specific Considerations

Review Order of Operations

Pass 1: Scan -- Read diff structure. Identify affected files and changed modules.
   Identify critical path files. Note files to skip (generated, config, formatting).
   
Pass 2: Correctness -- Read each changed file in the context of the full function.
   Verify logic, edge cases, error handling, data flow.
   
Pass 3: Architecture -- Check patterns, layer violations, dependency direction.
   Does this code belong where it is placed?
   
Pass 4: Security + Performance + Clarity -- Combine these in a single pass.
   Input validation, auth checks, N+1 queries, naming, magic numbers.
   
Pass 5: Tests -- Review test coverage, assertions, edge cases.
   Do tests validate the change? Are they testing behavior, not implementation?
   
Pass 6: Positive observations -- Find at least one thing done well per 3 findings.
   This is not optional. Code reviews should not be purely negative.

Workflow

Step 1: Correctness

• Does the code do what it claims?
• Are edge cases handled? (null, empty, invalid input)
• Error handling -- are all error paths handled?
• Are there off-by-one errors, race conditions, or type mismatches?

Correctness checklist:

• All function parameters validated at public API boundaries
• Null/undefined/empty string/zero treated as distinct cases
• Error responses have distinct types, not generic Error
• Loops handle empty collections gracefully
• Async operations have proper error propagation (no swallowed rejections)
• State mutations are intentional and traceable
• Data transformation preserves invariants (e.g., sorting a list maintains idempotency)
• Side effects (I/O, DB writes, API calls) are idempotent or logged
• Math operations handle division by zero, overflow, precision loss
• Date/time operations handle timezone-aware and timezone-naive mismatches
• Off-by-one: array indices, pagination, range loops
• Race conditions: shared state between async operations without synchronization

Step 2: Architecture

• Is the code in the right layer? (domain vs application vs infrastructure)
• Does it follow the project's architectural patterns (Clean Architecture, DDD)?
• Are there circular dependencies?
• Does it violate any layer rules (e.g., domain importing infrastructure)?

Architecture checklist:

• Code follows the project's defined architecture (folder structure, layer separation)
• No circular dependencies between modules or packages
• Imports respect dependency direction (domain <- application <- infrastructure)
• New abstractions are justified (not over-engineering for hypothetical future needs)
• Existing patterns are followed (not reinventing wheels)
• Inter-module communication follows established patterns (events, interfaces, DI)
• No leaky abstractions (implementation details exposed through public API)
• Configuration is externalized (not hardcoded)
• Business logic is in domain layer, not in controllers or UI
• Third-party dependencies are wrapped behind interfaces (not coupled directly)
• Feature flags or toggles are used for incomplete features (not commented code)

Step 3: Clarity

• Do names reveal intent? (function names, variable names, class names)
• Is there dead code, commented-out code, or unnecessary complexity?
• Are there magic numbers or strings that should be constants?
• Is the code self-documenting, or does it need comments?

Clarity checklist:

• Function names are verbs describing what they do
• Variable names describe meaning, not type (users not userList, index not i except in trivial loops)
• No magic strings/numbers -- all extracted to named constants
• Boolean parameters are named at call sites (createUser(isAdmin=true) not createUser(true))
• Functions do one thing (single responsibility at function level)
• Function length < 30 lines (exceptions for complex business logic with clear structure)
• No nested callbacks or deeply nested conditionals (refactor to early returns or guard clauses)
• Conditionals read naturally ("if user is active" not "if user.status === 'active' && user.subscription !== null")
• No commented-out code -- delete it
• No dead code -- unused functions, variables, imports
• Error messages are actionable ("Email is required" not "Validation failed")
• Log messages include context (user ID, correlation ID, function name)

Step 4: Performance

• Any obvious N+1 queries?
• Unnecessary allocations in hot paths?
• Blocking calls in async code?
• Missing indexes for database queries?
• Unoptimized bundle imports?

Performance checklist:

• Database queries: check for N+1 (lazy loading in ORM loops)
• Database queries: missing indexes on filter/join/sort columns
• No unnecessary object/array copies in loops (spread, slice, filter in hot paths)
• No blocking I/O in async context (sync fs, sync HTTP calls)
• Memory: no large objects held in closure scope longer than needed
• Memory: no event listeners that are never removed
• Bundle: tree-shakeable imports (named imports, not import *)
• Bundle: no duplicate dependencies (check lockfile)
• Caching: repeated computations cached (memoization, computed properties)
• Network: no sequential API calls that could be parallelized
• React: no unnecessary re-renders (missing memo, unstable props, inline callbacks)
• CSS: no expensive selectors (:nth-child chains, universal selectors on large lists)

Step 5: Security

• Input validation on all user-facing endpoints?
• Authorization checks where needed?
• No secrets, tokens, or passwords in code?
• SQL injection prevention? (parameterized queries)
• XSS prevention? (proper escaping)

Security checklist:

• All user input is validated (type, length, format, range)
• SQL queries use parameterized statements (not string concatenation)
• No hardcoded secrets, API keys, tokens, passwords
• Authentication checks on all protected endpoints
• Authorization checks at function level, not just route level
• No direct object references without ownership validation
• Output is properly escaped for the context (HTML, JSON, XML)
• File uploads have type validation and size limits
• Rate limiting on auth endpoints (login, password reset)
• CSRF protection on state-changing endpoints
• CORS configuration is appropriate for the deployment environment
• Dependencies are checked for known vulnerabilities
• Error messages do not leak stack traces or internal state
• Session management uses secure, httpOnly, sameSite cookies
• Redirect URLs are validated (no open redirects)

Step 6: Tests

• Does the code have tests? Are they meaningful?
• Do tests cover the acceptance criteria?
• Are tests testing behavior, not implementation?
• Are there edge cases tested beyond the happy path?

Test checklist:

• Tests exist for the change (new code has new tests, bug fix has regression test)
• Tests cover the happy path
• Tests cover edge cases (empty state, error state, boundary values)
• Tests cover failure paths (invalid input, system errors, auth failures)
• Tests test behavior, not implementation (test the outcome, not internal calls)
• No flaky tests (time-dependent, order-dependent, shared state)
• Test names describe the scenario and expected outcome
• Mocks are minimal -- prefer real dependencies for domain logic
• No test logic in production code (no test-only exports or conditional behavior)
• Snapshot tests have meaningful titles and are reviewed on update
• Integration tests cover key user workflows, not just unit tests
• Coverage: new code paths should have > 80% branch coverage

Rules & Constraints

• Every finding must include the exact file and line number.
• Severity labels: [MUST] = blocks merge, [SHOULD] = best practice, [CONSIDER] = suggestion.
• Include a positive observation for every 3 critical findings -- reviews shouldn't be purely negative.
• Never rewrite the code yourself -- point to the problem and suggest the approach.
• One review pass = one complete analysis -- don't do multiple passes on the same diff.
• If the diff is larger than 400 lines, focus on the most critical files.
• Do not raise style preferences as issues unless they violate project conventions.
• Do not review generated code, third-party code, or configuration unless it affects correctness.
• Each finding must be independently actionable. A reviewer should be able to fix each issue without context from other findings.
• If the same issue appears in multiple files, raise it once with a list of affected locations.
• If the code is correct but could be simpler, prefer [CONSIDER] over [SHOULD].
• Performance findings must include measurable impact estimate (e.g., "adds 200ms to page load").

Common Pitfalls

1. Style Over Substance

Flagging formatting, naming, or style preferences as [MUST] when no project convention exists. Style is not correctness. Use [CONSIDER] for style unless it violates an established standard.

Fix: Before reviewing, check if the project has a style guide, linter config, or formatter. If it does, reference it. If not, style is [CONSIDER] at most.

2. Missing the Context

Reviewing a function without understanding how it is called or what data it processes. A function that is correct in isolation may be wrong in context.

Fix: Read calling code and test files before the implementation. Understand the data flow before evaluating the code.

3. Over-engineering Feedback

Suggesting abstractions, patterns, or refactors that are disproportionate to the change. A 5-line bug fix should not trigger a [MUST] to "extract a strategy pattern."

Fix: Proportionate feedback. A 10-line change gets 1-2 findings. A 200-line feature gets 5-10 findings. Match the review depth to the change size.

4. Negative-only Reviews

Listing 15 issues and 0 positives. This demoralizes the author and trains them to ignore feedback.

Fix: Every review must include positive observations. Find something the author did well, even if it is "good test coverage" or "clear variable naming."

5. False Positives (Nitpicking)

Raising issues that are technically correct but practically irrelevant: unused import in a test file, white-space inconsistency, variable name preference.

Fix: Ask: "If the author ignores this finding, will the code break or cause maintenance burden?" If no, it is not worth raising. Use [CONSIDER] sparingly for genuinely helpful suggestions, not perfectionism.

6. Ignoring Tests

Reviewing only production code and ignoring the test file. Tests are the only way to verify correctness; ignoring them means the review is incomplete.

Fix: Never mark a review complete without reviewing the test file. If there are no tests, that is a [MUST] finding.

7. Assuming Your Way Is the Only Way

Multiple approaches can be correct. If the code is correct, performant, and maintainable, do not flag it for not matching your preferred pattern.

Fix: Before raising an architecture finding, ask: "Is the current approach incorrect, or just different from how I would do it?" Only raise if it is genuinely wrong.

8. Reviewing Without the Diff Context

Looking at a changed function in isolation without seeing what changed from the previous version. The diff shows intent; the full file shows context. Both are needed.

Fix: Start with the diff to understand what changed. Then read the full file for the changed functions to understand context.

9. Inconsistent Severity Labeling

Labeling similar issues with different severity in the same review. This confuses the author and undermines the severity system.

Fix: Be consistent. Define severity before reviewing: "Is this a logic bug? MUST. Is this a naming preference? CONSIDER." Apply uniformly.

10. Rewriting Code in Comments

Writing long code snippets in review comments instead of pointing to the problem. The reviewer's job is to find issues, not to write the fix.

Fix: Describe the approach in 1-2 sentences. Only include code if the fix is non-obvious. For obvious fixes, just state the problem and suggested approach.

Compared With

This review skill is the broadest, covering all dimensions in a single pass. It is the default starting point for any code review request.

Performance Considerations

Review Efficiency

Time budget per line: 30-60 seconds per changed line for critical code, 10-20 seconds for config/tests. Aim for 200-400 lines per hour maximum. Beyond this, review quality drops.

Review fatigue: After 60 minutes of continuous review, finding accuracy drops by 40%. Take breaks. Split large reviews across sessions.

Priority allocation: Spend 60% of review time on correctness + security (highest risk), 25% on architecture + tests, 15% on clarity + performance. This weighting ensures the most impactful issues are caught.

Automation to Reduce Review Load

Automated checks that should pass before human review starts:

# Pre-review CI checks
- Lint: passes project linting rules
- Type check: no type errors (strict mode where applicable)
- Test: all existing tests pass
- Format: matches project formatter
- Security scan: no known vulnerabilities in new dependencies
- Bundle size: within threshold (if applicable)

If any automated check fails, the author should fix it before requesting review. Do not waste reviewer time on issues automation can catch.

Large PR Protocol

When a PR exceeds 400 lines:

1. Flag the size in the review header: "Diff is 800 lines. Review focused on critical path: auth flow and payment processing."
2. Explicitly state what was NOT reviewed: "Skipped: CSS changes, test data fixtures, logging config."
3. Recommend splitting: "This PR should be split: (a) backend API changes, (b) frontend integration, (c) schema migration."
4. If the PR cannot be split, prioritize review by risk: most complex logic first, most security-sensitive first.

Ecosystem & Tooling

CI Integration

# GitHub Actions: Automated review gate
name: code-review-gate
on: [pull_request]
jobs:
  review:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - run: npm ci
      - run: npm run lint
      - run: npm run typecheck
      - run: npm test -- --coverage
      - name: Check coverage threshold
        run: |
          $coverage = (Get-Content coverage/coverage-summary.json | ConvertFrom-Json).total.lines.pct
          if ($coverage -lt 80) { throw "Coverage below 80%" }
      - name: Check for secrets
        run: npx secretlint "**/*"

Review Tools

• Reviewdog: Automates review comment posting for linters and custom checks.
• SonarQube / SonarCloud: Static analysis with technical debt calculation.
• CodeClimate: Maintainability and test coverage metrics.
• Snyk / Dependabot: Dependency vulnerability scanning.
• ESLint + plugins: Language-specific linting for JS/TS.
• Prettier: Automatic formatting to eliminate style reviews.
• Husky + lint-staged: Pre-commit hooks for pre-review quality.

Review Workflow Configuration

// .github/CODEOWNERS
# Default reviewer
* @team/engineering

# Critical paths require senior review
src/auth/** @team/security-reviewers
src/payments/** @team/senior-engineers
src/db/migrations/** @team/db-admin

# Documentation
docs/** @team/tech-writers

Rules

1. Every finding includes exact file and line number. No vague feedback.
2. Severity: [MUST] = blocks merge, [SHOULD] = best practice, [CONSIDER] = suggestion.
3. At least one positive observation per 3 critical findings.
4. Never rewrite code. Describe the problem and suggested approach.
5. One pass = complete. No multi-pass reviews on the same diff.
6. Diffs > 400 lines: focus on critical files, flag size issue.
7. Do not raise style issues unless they violate established conventions.
8. Generated code, third-party code, and config are not reviewed unless they affect correctness.
9. Each finding is independently actionable.
10. Performance findings include measurable impact estimate.
11. [MUST] only for correctness bugs, security vulnerabilities, or contract violations.
12. Deleted code is not reviewed unless it indicates a misunderstanding.
13. If the same issue appears in N files, raise once with N locations.
14. Do not review formatting if a formatter is configured. Refer the author to the formatter.
15. If the PR has no tests for new logic: [MUST] "Add tests covering the new behavior."

Output Format

## Code Review: {file/scope}

### [MUST] {short title}
- **File**: `src/path/file.ts:42`
- **Issue**: {what's wrong}
- **Why**: {impact of the issue}
- **Fix**: {suggested approach}

### [SHOULD] {short title}
...

### [CONSIDER] {short title}
...

### Positive
- {what's done well}

References

• references/code-review-advanced.md -- Code Review Advanced Topics
• references/code-review-fundamentals.md -- Code Review Fundamentals
• references/review-checklist.md -- Code Review Checklist
• references/review-workflow.md -- Code Review Workflow
• references/security-review-checklist.md -- Security Review Checklist
• references/security-review-guide.md -- Security Review Guide
• references/code-review-checklist.md -- Comprehensive Code Review Checklist
• references/code-review-workflow-automation.md -- Code Review Workflow and Automation

Handoff

After completing this skill:

• Next skill: debugging-strategy -- if issues found need deeper investigation.
• Pass context: review findings, files reviewed, severity levels.

Compression footer: code-review/v1.1 | sections: protocol, architecture, workflow, rules, pitfalls, comparisons, performance, ecosystem.

Source: j4flmao/agent-skills — distributed by TomeVault.