Code Review Philosophy

TL;DR

Systematic code review across 4 layers with severity classification. Only report findings with ≥80% confidence. Include file:line references for all issues.

When to Use This Skill

• Before reporting implementation completion
• When explicitly asked to review code
• When using the /review command
• As an independent audit after code changes

The 4 Review Layers

Layer 1: Correctness

• Logic errors and edge cases
• Error handling completeness
• Type safety and null checks
• Algorithm correctness
• Off-by-one errors

Layer 2: Security

• No hardcoded secrets or API keys
• Input validation and sanitization
• Injection vulnerability prevention (SQL, XSS, command)
• Authentication and authorization checks
• Sensitive data not logged
• OWASP Top 10 awareness

Layer 3: Performance

• No N+1 query patterns
• Appropriate caching strategies
• No unnecessary re-renders (React/frontend)
• Lazy loading where appropriate
• Memory leak prevention
• Algorithmic complexity concerns

Layer 4: Style & Maintainability

• Adherence to project conventions (check AGENTS.md)
• Code duplication (DRY violations)
• Complexity management (cyclomatic complexity)
• Documentation completeness
• Test coverage gaps

Severity Classification

Confidence Threshold

Only report findings with ≥80% confidence.

If uncertain about an issue:

• State the uncertainty explicitly: “Potential issue (70% confidence): …”
• Suggest investigation rather than assert a problem
• Prefer false negatives over false positives (reduce noise)

Review Process

1. Initial Scan – Identify all files in scope, understand the change
2. Deep Analysis – Apply all 4 layers systematically to each file
3. Context Evaluation – Consider surrounding code, project patterns, existing conventions
4. Philosophy Check – Verify against code-philosophy (5 Laws) if applicable
5. Synthesize Findings – Group by severity, deduplicate, prioritize

Output Format

Structure your review as:

1. Files Reviewed – List all files analyzed
2. Overall Assessment – APPROVE | REQUEST_CHANGES | NEEDS_DISCUSSION
3. Summary – 2-3 sentence overview
4. Critical Issues (🔴) – With file:line references
5. Major Issues (🟠) – With file:line references
6. Minor Issues (🟡) – With file:line references
7. Positive Observations (🟢) – What’s done well (always include at least one)
8. Philosophy Compliance – Checklist results if applicable

What NOT to Do

• Do NOT report low-confidence findings as definite issues
• Do NOT provide vague feedback without file:line references
• Do NOT skip any of the 4 layers
• Do NOT forget to note positive observations
• Do NOT modify any files during review
• Do NOT approve without completing the full review process

Adherence Checklist

Before completing a review, verify:

• All 4 layers analyzed (Correctness, Security, Performance, Style)
• Severity assigned to each finding
• Confidence ≥80% for all reported issues (or uncertainty stated)
• File names and line numbers included for all findings
• Positive observations noted
• Output follows the standard format