Code Changes Review

Perform a thorough, professional code review of uncommitted changes in the current git working copy.

Overview

This skill analyzes all staged and unstaged changes, providing actionable feedback across multiple quality dimensions:

• Correctness - Logic errors, bugs, edge cases
• Security - Vulnerabilities, injection risks, sensitive data exposure
• Best Practices - Language idioms, framework conventions, patterns
• DRY/Reusability - Code duplication, abstraction opportunities
• Code Smells - Maintainability issues, complexity, coupling
• Performance - Inefficiencies, N+1 queries, memory leaks
• Testing - Test coverage gaps, test quality

Instructions

Step 1: Gather Changes

First, collect all changes to be reviewed:

# Check repository status
git status

# Get the full diff of all changes (staged + unstaged)
git diff HEAD

# If only staged changes should be reviewed
git diff --cached

Important: Review BOTH staged and unstaged changes unless the user specifically requests otherwise.

Step 2: Understand Context

Before reviewing changes, understand the broader context:

1. Identify the purpose - What is the change trying to accomplish?
2. Check related files - Read unchanged files that interact with modified code
3. Understand the codebase patterns - Look at existing code style and conventions
4. Review recent commits - Check git log -5 --oneline for context

Step 3: Analyze Each Change

For each modified file, evaluate against the Review Checklist:

3.1 Correctness & Logic

• Does the code do what it's supposed to do?
• Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values)?
• Are error conditions properly handled?
• Is the control flow correct (loops, conditionals)?
• Are there off-by-one errors?
• Are race conditions possible in concurrent code?

3.2 Security

• Input validation present for user data?
• SQL/NoSQL injection prevention (parameterized queries)?
• XSS prevention (output encoding)?
• Command injection prevention?
• Sensitive data not logged or exposed?
• Authentication/authorization properly enforced?
• Secrets not hardcoded?
• Dependencies up-to-date and without known vulnerabilities?

3.3 Best Practices

• Follows language/framework idioms?
• Consistent naming conventions?
• Appropriate abstraction level?
• Single Responsibility Principle followed?
• Functions/methods reasonably sized?
• Comments explain "why", not "what"?
• Error messages helpful and not exposing internals?

3.4 DRY & Reusability

• No duplicated code within the change?
• No duplication with existing codebase?
• Opportunities to extract reusable functions/components?
• Consistent patterns with existing code?

3.5 Code Smells

• No magic numbers/strings (use constants)?
• No deeply nested code (max 3 levels)?
• No overly long functions (context-dependent, usually <50 lines)?
• No God objects/functions doing too much?
• No tight coupling between components?
• No dead code or commented-out code?

3.6 Performance

• No N+1 query patterns?
• Appropriate data structures used?
• No unnecessary iterations or computations?
• Resources properly closed/disposed?
• Caching considered where appropriate?
• No memory leaks (especially in long-running processes)?

3.7 Testing

• Are new features covered by tests?
• Are edge cases tested?
• Do tests follow AAA pattern (Arrange, Act, Assert)?
• Are tests independent and deterministic?
• Is test naming clear and descriptive?

Step 4: Provide Structured Feedback

Organize findings by severity and category:

## Code Review Summary

**Scope**: [X files changed, Y insertions, Z deletions]
**Overall Assessment**: [Brief summary]

---

### Critical Issues (Must Fix)

These issues must be resolved before merging:

1. **[SECURITY]** `path/to/file.js:42` - SQL injection vulnerability
   - **Problem**: User input directly interpolated into query
   - **Fix**: Use parameterized query with `db.query(sql, [param])`

2. **[BUG]** `path/to/file.py:87` - Off-by-one error in loop
   - **Problem**: Loop iterates one extra time causing IndexError
   - **Fix**: Change `range(len(items) + 1)` to `range(len(items))`

---

### Important Issues (Should Fix)

These issues should be addressed:

1. **[PERFORMANCE]** `path/to/file.ts:23` - N+1 query in loop
   - **Problem**: Database query inside forEach loop
   - **Suggestion**: Batch fetch with single query using `IN` clause

---

### Suggestions (Nice to Have)

These are recommendations for improvement:

1. **[DRY]** `path/to/utils.js:15-30` - Duplicated validation logic
   - **Current**: Same email regex in 3 places
   - **Suggestion**: Extract to shared `validateEmail()` function

---

### Positive Observations

Good practices noticed in this change:

- Proper error handling with specific error types
- Clear function naming following conventions
- Comprehensive input validation on API endpoints

Step 5: Provide Actionable Recommendations

For each issue:

1. Be specific - Include file path and line numbers
2. Explain why - Not just what's wrong, but the impact
3. Show how to fix - Provide concrete code suggestions when possible
4. Prioritize - Critical > Important > Suggestions

Step 6: Summary and Next Steps

End with:

1. Overall quality assessment (Ready to merge / Needs work / Major revision needed)
2. Priority items - Top 3 things to fix first
3. Follow-up questions - Clarifications needed from the author

Severity Levels

Language-Specific Considerations

JavaScript/TypeScript

• Check for === vs ==
• Proper async/await error handling
• Memory leaks in event listeners
• Type safety (TypeScript)
• Module import/export patterns

Python

• Type hints usage
• Context managers for resources
• List comprehension vs loops
• Exception handling specificity
• PEP 8 compliance

Go

• Error handling (not ignoring errors)
• Goroutine leaks
• Proper defer usage
• Interface segregation
• Effective Go patterns

Rust

• Ownership and borrowing
• Error handling with Result/Option
• Unsafe code justification
• Clippy warnings
• Idiomatic patterns

SQL Changes

• Injection vulnerabilities
• Index usage
• N+1 patterns
• Transaction boundaries
• Migration reversibility

Review Modes

Quick Review (Default)

Focus on critical and important issues:

• Security vulnerabilities
• Obvious bugs
• Major code smells

Thorough Review (--thorough)

Complete analysis including:

• All checklist items
• Style consistency
• Documentation quality
• Test coverage analysis

Security-Focused Review (--security)

Deep dive into security:

• OWASP Top 10 checks
• Authentication/authorization
• Data validation
• Cryptographic practices

Performance Review (--performance)

Focus on efficiency:

• Algorithm complexity
• Database query patterns
• Memory usage
• Caching opportunities

Integration with CI/CD

For automated reviews, output can be formatted as:

# JSON format for CI integration
--format json

# GitHub-compatible annotations
--format github

# GitLab-compatible notes
--format gitlab

Examples

Example 1: Simple Review Request

User: Review my changes

Response: [Full review following the structure above]

Example 2: Focused Review

User: Review my changes focusing on security

Response: [Security-focused review with OWASP considerations]

Example 3: Pre-commit Review

User: Quick review before I commit

Response: [Quick review highlighting only critical/important issues]

Additional Resources

• CHECKLIST.md - Complete review checklist with examples
• OWASP Top 10 - Security reference
• Code Smells Catalog - Refactoring patterns

Best Practices for Reviewers

1. Be constructive - Focus on the code, not the person
2. Explain the "why" - Help the author learn
3. Offer alternatives - Don't just criticize
4. Acknowledge good work - Positive feedback matters
5. Ask questions - Understand before judging
6. Be timely - Quick feedback is valuable feedback
7. Stay focused - Review what changed, not unrelated code