Code Review Skill

Conduct a thorough code review for quality, security, and maintainability with severity-rated feedback.

When to Use

This skill activates when:

• User requests “review this code”, “code review”
• Before merging a pull request
• After implementing a major feature
• User wants quality assessment

What It Does

Delegates to the code-reviewer agent (Opus model) for deep analysis:

1. Identify Changes

   • Run git diff to find changed files
   • Determine scope of review (specific files or entire PR)

2. Review Categories

   • Security – Hardcoded secrets, injection risks, XSS, CSRF
   • Code Quality – Function size, complexity, nesting depth
   • Performance – Algorithm efficiency, N+1 queries, caching
   • Best Practices – Naming, documentation, error handling
   • Maintainability – Duplication, coupling, testability

3. Severity Rating

   • CRITICAL – Security vulnerability (must fix before merge)
   • HIGH – Bug or major code smell (should fix before merge)
   • MEDIUM – Minor issue (fix when possible)
   • LOW – Style/suggestion (consider fixing)

4. Specific Recommendations

   • File:line locations for each issue
   • Concrete fix suggestions
   • Code examples where applicable

Agent Delegation

Task(
  subagent_type="oh-my-claudecode:code-reviewer",
  model="opus",
  prompt="CODE REVIEW TASK

Review code changes for quality, security, and maintainability.

Scope: [git diff or specific files]

Review Checklist:
- Security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10)
- Code quality (complexity, duplication)
- Performance issues (N+1, inefficient algorithms)
- Best practices (naming, documentation, error handling)
- Maintainability (coupling, testability)

Output: Code review report with:
- Files reviewed count
- Issues by severity (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
- Specific file:line locations
- Fix recommendations
- Approval recommendation (APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / COMMENT)"
)

External Model Consultation (Preferred)

The code-reviewer agent SHOULD consult Codex for cross-validation.

Protocol

1. Form your OWN review FIRST – Complete the review independently
2. Consult for validation – Cross-check findings with Codex
3. Critically evaluate – Never blindly adopt external findings
4. Graceful fallback – Never block if tools unavailable

When to Consult

• Security-sensitive code changes
• Complex architectural patterns
• Unfamiliar codebases or languages
• High-stakes production code

When to Skip

• Simple refactoring
• Well-understood patterns
• Time-critical reviews
• Small, isolated changes

Tool Usage

Before first MCP tool use, call ToolSearch("mcp") to discover deferred MCP tools. Use mcp__x__ask_codex with agent_role: "code-reviewer". If ToolSearch finds no MCP tools, fall back to the code-reviewer Claude agent.

Note: Codex calls can take up to 1 hour. Consider the review timeline before consulting.

Output Format

CODE REVIEW REPORT
==================

Files Reviewed: 8
Total Issues: 15

CRITICAL (0)
-----------
(none)

HIGH (3)
--------
1. src/api/auth.ts:42
   Issue: User input not sanitized before SQL query
   Risk: SQL injection vulnerability
   Fix: Use parameterized queries or ORM

2. src/components/UserProfile.tsx:89
   Issue: Password displayed in plain text in logs
   Risk: Credential exposure
   Fix: Remove password from log statements

3. src/utils/validation.ts:15
   Issue: Email regex allows invalid formats
   Risk: Accepts malformed emails
   Fix: Use proven email validation library

MEDIUM (7)
----------
...

LOW (5)
-------
...

RECOMMENDATION: REQUEST CHANGES

Critical security issues must be addressed before merge.

Review Checklist

The code-reviewer agent checks:

Security

• No hardcoded secrets (API keys, passwords, tokens)
• All user inputs sanitized
• SQL/NoSQL injection prevention
• XSS prevention (escaped outputs)
• CSRF protection on state-changing operations
• Authentication/authorization properly enforced

Code Quality

• Functions < 50 lines (guideline)
• Cyclomatic complexity < 10
• No deeply nested code (> 4 levels)
• No duplicate logic (DRY principle)
• Clear, descriptive naming

Performance

• No N+1 query patterns
• Appropriate caching where applicable
• Efficient algorithms (avoid O(n²) when O(n) possible)
• No unnecessary re-renders (React/Vue)

Best Practices

• Error handling present and appropriate
• Logging at appropriate levels
• Documentation for public APIs
• Tests for critical paths
• No commented-out code

Approval Criteria

APPROVE – No CRITICAL or HIGH issues, minor improvements only REQUEST CHANGES – CRITICAL or HIGH issues present COMMENT – Only LOW/MEDIUM issues, no blocking concerns

Use with Other Skills

With Pipeline:

/pipeline review "implement user authentication"

Includes code review as part of implementation workflow.

With Ralph:

/ralph code-review then fix all issues

Review code, get feedback, fix until approved.

With Ultrawork:

/ultrawork review all files in src/

Parallel code review across multiple files.

Best Practices

• Review early – Catch issues before they compound
• Review often – Small, frequent reviews better than huge ones
• Address CRITICAL/HIGH first – Fix security and bugs immediately
• Consider context – Some “issues” may be intentional trade-offs
• Learn from reviews – Use feedback to improve coding practices