Code Review Expert

Overview

Perform a structured review of the current git changes with focus on SOLID, architecture, removal candidates, and security risks. Default to review-only output unless the user asks to implement changes.

Severity Levels

Level Name Description Action P0 Critical Security vulnerability, data loss risk, correctness bug Must block merge P1 High Logic error, significant SOLID violation, performance regression Should fix before merge P2 Medium Code smell, maintainability concern, minor SOLID violation Fix in this PR or create follow-up P3 Low Style, naming, minor suggestion Optional improvement

Workflow

1) Preflight context

• Use git status -sb, git diff --stat, and git diff to scope changes.
• If needed, use rg or grep to find related modules, usages, and contracts.
• Identify entry points, ownership boundaries, and critical paths (auth, payments, data writes, network). Edge cases:
• No changes: If git diff is empty, inform user and ask if they want to review staged changes or a specific commit range.
• Large diff (>500 lines): Summarize by file first, then review in batches by module/feature area.
• Mixed concerns: Group findings by logical feature, not just file order.

2) SOLID + architecture smells

• Load references/solid-checklist.md for specific prompts.
• Look for:
  • SRP: Overloaded modules with unrelated responsibilities.
  • OCP: Frequent edits to add behavior instead of extension points.
  • LSP: Subclasses that break expectations or require type checks.
  • ISP: Wide interfaces with unused methods.
  • DIP: High-level logic tied to low-level implementations.
• When you propose a refactor, explain why it improves cohesion/coupling and outline a minimal, safe split.
• If refactor is non-trivial, propose an incremental plan instead of a large rewrite.

3) Removal candidates + iteration plan

• Load references/removal-plan.md for template.
• Identify code that is unused, redundant, or feature-flagged off.
• Distinguish safe delete now vs defer with plan.
• Provide a follow-up plan with concrete steps and checkpoints (tests/metrics).

4) Security and reliability scan

• Load references/security-checklist.md for coverage.
• Check for:
  • XSS, injection (SQL/NoSQL/command), SSRF, path traversal
  • AuthZ/AuthN gaps, missing tenancy checks
  • Secret leakage or API keys in logs/env/files
  • Rate limits, unbounded loops, CPU/memory hotspots
  • Unsafe deserialization, weak crypto, insecure defaults
  • Race conditions: concurrent access, check-then-act, TOCTOU, missing locks
• Call out both exploitability and impact.

5) Code quality scan

• Load references/code-quality-checklist.md for coverage.
• Check for:
  • Error handling: swallowed exceptions, overly broad catch, missing error handling, async errors
  • Performance: N+1 queries, CPU-intensive ops in hot paths, missing cache, unbounded memory
  • Boundary conditions: null/undefined handling, empty collections, numeric boundaries, off-by-one
• Flag issues that may cause silent failures or production incidents.

6) Output format

Structure your review as follows:

## Code Review Summary
**Files reviewed**: X files, Y lines changed
**Overall assessment**: [APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / COMMENT]
---
## Findings
### P0 - Critical
(none or list)
### P1 - High
1. **[file:line]** Brief title
  - Description of issue
  - Suggested fix
### P2 - Medium
2. (continue numbering across sections)
  - ...
### P3 - Low
...
---
## Removal/Iteration Plan
(if applicable)
## Additional Suggestions
(optional improvements, not blocking)

Inline comments: Use this format for file-specific findings:

::code-comment{file="path/to/file.ts" line="42" severity="P1"}
Description of the issue and suggested fix.
::

Clean review: If no issues found, explicitly state:

• What was checked
• Any areas not covered (e.g., "Did not verify database migrations")
• Residual risks or recommended follow-up tests

7) Next steps confirmation

After presenting findings, ask user how to proceed:

---
## Next Steps
I found X issues (P0: _, P1: _, P2: _, P3: _).
**How would you like to proceed?**
1. **Fix all** - I'll implement all suggested fixes
2. **Fix P0/P1 only** - Address critical and high priority issues
3. **Fix specific items** - Tell me which issues to fix
4. **No changes** - Review complete, no implementation needed
Please choose an option or provide specific instructions.

Important: Do NOT implement any changes until user explicitly confirms. This is a review-first workflow.

Resources

references/

File Purpose solid-checklist.md SOLID smell prompts and refactor heuristics security-checklist.md Web/app security and runtime risk checklist code-quality-checklist.md Error handling, performance, boundary conditions removal-plan.md Template for deletion candidates and follow-up plan

GitHub Owner

Owner: sanyuan0704

GitHub Links

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/sanyuan0704

SKILL.md

---

name: code-review-expert description: "Expert code review of current git changes with a senior engineer lens. Detects SOLID violations, security risks, and proposes actionable improvements."

Code Review Expert

Overview

Perform a structured review of the current git changes with focus on SOLID, architecture, removal candidates, and security risks. Default to review-only output unless the user asks to implement changes.

Severity Levels

Level	Name	Description	Action
P0	Critical	Security vulnerability, data loss risk, correctness bug	Must block merge
P1	High	Logic error, significant SOLID violation, performance regression	Should fix before merge
P2	Medium	Code smell, maintainability concern, minor SOLID violation	Fix in this PR or create follow-up
P3	Low	Style, naming, minor suggestion	Optional improvement

Workflow

1) Preflight context

• Use git status -sb, git diff --stat, and git diff to scope changes.
• If needed, use rg or grep to find related modules, usages, and contracts.
• Identify entry points, ownership boundaries, and critical paths (auth, payments, data writes, network). Edge cases:
• No changes: If git diff is empty, inform user and ask if they want to review staged changes or a specific commit range.
• Large diff (>500 lines): Summarize by file first, then review in batches by module/feature area.
• Mixed concerns: Group findings by logical feature, not just file order.

2) SOLID + architecture smells

• Load references/solid-checklist.md for specific prompts.
• Look for:
  • SRP: Overloaded modules with unrelated responsibilities.
  • OCP: Frequent edits to add behavior instead of extension points.
  • LSP: Subclasses that break expectations or require type checks.
  • ISP: Wide interfaces with unused methods.
  • DIP: High-level logic tied to low-level implementations.
• When you propose a refactor, explain why it improves cohesion/coupling and outline a minimal, safe split.
• If refactor is non-trivial, propose an incremental plan instead of a large rewrite.

3) Removal candidates + iteration plan

• Load references/removal-plan.md for template.
• Identify code that is unused, redundant, or feature-flagged off.
• Distinguish safe delete now vs defer with plan.
• Provide a follow-up plan with concrete steps and checkpoints (tests/metrics).

4) Security and reliability scan

• Load references/security-checklist.md for coverage.
• Check for:
  • XSS, injection (SQL/NoSQL/command), SSRF, path traversal
  • AuthZ/AuthN gaps, missing tenancy checks
  • Secret leakage or API keys in logs/env/files
  • Rate limits, unbounded loops, CPU/memory hotspots
  • Unsafe deserialization, weak crypto, insecure defaults
  • Race conditions: concurrent access, check-then-act, TOCTOU, missing locks
• Call out both exploitability and impact.

5) Code quality scan

• Load references/code-quality-checklist.md for coverage.
• Check for:
  • Error handling: swallowed exceptions, overly broad catch, missing error handling, async errors
  • Performance: N+1 queries, CPU-intensive ops in hot paths, missing cache, unbounded memory
  • Boundary conditions: null/undefined handling, empty collections, numeric boundaries, off-by-one
• Flag issues that may cause silent failures or production incidents.

6) Output format

Structure your review as follows:

## Code Review Summary
**Files reviewed**: X files, Y lines changed
**Overall assessment**: [APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / COMMENT]
---
## Findings
### P0 - Critical
(none or list)
### P1 - High
1. **[file:line]** Brief title
  - Description of issue
  - Suggested fix
### P2 - Medium
2. (continue numbering across sections)
  - ...
### P3 - Low
...
---
## Removal/Iteration Plan
(if applicable)
## Additional Suggestions
(optional improvements, not blocking)

Inline comments: Use this format for file-specific findings:

::code-comment{file="path/to/file.ts" line="42" severity="P1"}
Description of the issue and suggested fix.
::

Clean review: If no issues found, explicitly state:

• What was checked
• Any areas not covered (e.g., "Did not verify database migrations")
• Residual risks or recommended follow-up tests

7) Next steps confirmation

After presenting findings, ask user how to proceed:

---
## Next Steps
I found X issues (P0: _, P1: _, P2: _, P3: _).
**How would you like to proceed?**
1. **Fix all** - I'll implement all suggested fixes
2. **Fix P0/P1 only** - Address critical and high priority issues
3. **Fix specific items** - Tell me which issues to fix
4. **No changes** - Review complete, no implementation needed
Please choose an option or provide specific instructions.

Important: Do NOT implement any changes until user explicitly confirms. This is a review-first workflow.

Resources

references/

File	Purpose
solid-checklist.md	SOLID smell prompts and refactor heuristics
security-checklist.md	Web/app security and runtime risk checklist
code-quality-checklist.md	Error handling, performance, boundary conditions
removal-plan.md	Template for deletion candidates and follow-up plan