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

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

- **[file:line]** Brief title
  - Description of issue
  - Suggested fix

### P2 - Medium

...

### 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/