autohandai/code-review

Code Review

When to use this skill

• Reviewing pull requests
• Checking code quality
• Providing feedback on implementations
• Identifying potential bugs
• Suggesting improvements
• Security audits
• Performance analysis

Instructions

Step 1: Understand the context

Read the PR description:

• What is the goal of this change?
• Which issues does it address?
• Are there any special considerations?

Check the scope:

• How many files changed?
• What type of changes? (feature, bugfix, refactor)
• Are tests included?

Step 2: High-level review

Architecture and design:

• Does the approach make sense?
• Is it consistent with existing patterns?
• Are there simpler alternatives?
• Is the code in the right place?

Code organization:

• Clear separation of concerns?
• Appropriate abstraction levels?
• Logical file/folder structure?

Step 3: Detailed code review

Naming:

• [ ] Variables: descriptive, meaningful names
• [ ] Functions: verb-based, clear purpose
• [ ] Classes: noun-based, single responsibility
• [ ] Constants: UPPER_CASE for true constants
• [ ] Avoid abbreviations unless widely known

Functions:

• [ ] Single responsibility
• [ ] Reasonable length (< 50 lines ideally)
• [ ] Clear inputs and outputs
• [ ] Minimal side effects
• [ ] Proper error handling

Classes and objects:

• [ ] Single responsibility principle
• [ ] Open/closed principle
• [ ] Liskov substitution principle
• [ ] Interface segregation
• [ ] Dependency inversion

Error handling:

• [ ] All errors caught and handled
• [ ] Meaningful error messages
• [ ] Proper logging
• [ ] No silent failures
• [ ] User-friendly errors for UI

Code quality:

• [ ] No code duplication (DRY)
• [ ] No dead code
• [ ] No commented-out code
• [ ] No magic numbers
• [ ] Consistent formatting

Step 4: Security review

Input validation:

• [ ] All user inputs validated
• [ ] Type checking
• [ ] Range checking
• [ ] Format validation

Authentication & Authorization:

• [ ] Proper authentication checks
• [ ] Authorization for sensitive operations
• [ ] Session management
• [ ] Password handling (hashing, salting)

Data protection:

• [ ] No hardcoded secrets
• [ ] Sensitive data encrypted
• [ ] SQL injection prevention
• [ ] XSS prevention
• [ ] CSRF protection

Dependencies:

• [ ] No vulnerable packages
• [ ] Dependencies up-to-date
• [ ] Minimal dependency usage

Step 5: Performance review

Algorithms:

• [ ] Appropriate algorithm choice
• [ ] Reasonable time complexity
• [ ] Reasonable space complexity
• [ ] No unnecessary loops

Database:

• [ ] Efficient queries
• [ ] Proper indexing
• [ ] N+1 query prevention
• [ ] Connection pooling

Caching:

• [ ] Appropriate caching strategy
• [ ] Cache invalidation handled
• [ ] Memory usage reasonable

Resource management:

• [ ] Files properly closed
• [ ] Connections released
• [ ] Memory leaks prevented

Step 6: Testing review

Test coverage:

• [ ] Unit tests for new code
• [ ] Integration tests if needed
• [ ] Edge cases covered
• [ ] Error cases tested

Test quality:

• [ ] Tests are readable
• [ ] Tests are maintainable
• [ ] Tests are deterministic
• [ ] No test interdependencies
• [ ] Proper test data setup/teardown

Test naming:

# Good
def test_user_creation_with_valid_data_succeeds():
    pass

# Bad
def test1():
    pass

Step 7: Documentation review

Code comments:

• [ ] Complex logic explained
• [ ] No obvious comments
• [ ] TODOs have tickets
• [ ] Comments are accurate

Function documentation:

def calculate_total(items: List[Item], tax_rate: float) -> Decimal:
    """
    Calculate the total price including tax.

    Args:
        items: List of items to calculate total for
        tax_rate: Tax rate as decimal (e.g., 0.1 for 10%)

    Returns:
        Total price including tax

    Raises:
        ValueError: If tax_rate is negative
    """
    pass

README/docs:

• [ ] README updated if needed
• [ ] API docs updated
• [ ] Migration guide if breaking changes

Step 8: Provide feedback

Be constructive:

✅ Good:
"Consider extracting this logic into a separate function for better
testability and reusability:

def validate_email(email: str) -> bool:
    return '@' in email and '.' in email.split('@')[1]

This would make it easier to test and reuse across the codebase."

❌ Bad:
"This is wrong. Rewrite it."

Be specific:

✅ Good:
"On line 45, this query could cause N+1 problem. Consider using
.select_related('author') to fetch related objects in a single query."

❌ Bad:
"Performance issues here."

Prioritize issues:

• 🔴 Critical: Security, data loss, major bugs
• 🟡 Important: Performance, maintainability
• 🟢 Nice-to-have: Style, minor improvements

Acknowledge good work:

"Nice use of the strategy pattern here! This makes it easy to add
new payment methods in the future."

Review checklist

Functionality

• [ ] Code does what it's supposed to do
• [ ] Edge cases handled
• [ ] Error cases handled
• [ ] No obvious bugs

Code Quality

• [ ] Clear, descriptive naming
• [ ] Functions are small and focused
• [ ] No code duplication
• [ ] Consistent with codebase style
• [ ] No code smells

Security

• [ ] Input validation
• [ ] No hardcoded secrets
• [ ] Authentication/authorization
• [ ] No SQL injection vulnerabilities
• [ ] No XSS vulnerabilities

Performance

• [ ] No obvious bottlenecks
• [ ] Efficient algorithms
• [ ] Proper database queries
• [ ] Resource management

Testing

• [ ] Tests included
• [ ] Good test coverage
• [ ] Tests are maintainable
• [ ] Edge cases tested

Documentation

• [ ] Code is self-documenting
• [ ] Comments where needed
• [ ] Docs updated
• [ ] Breaking changes documented

Common issues

Anti-patterns

God class:

# Bad: One class doing everything
class UserManager:
    def create_user(self): pass
    def send_email(self): pass
    def process_payment(self): pass
    def generate_report(self): pass

Magic numbers:

# Bad
if user.age > 18:
    pass

# Good
MINIMUM_AGE = 18
if user.age > MINIMUM_AGE:
    pass

Deep nesting:

# Bad
if condition1:
    if condition2:
        if condition3:
            if condition4:
                # deeply nested code

# Good (early returns)
if not condition1:
    return
if not condition2:
    return
if not condition3:
    return
if not condition4:
    return
# flat code

Security vulnerabilities

SQL Injection:

# Bad
query = f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}"

# Good
query = "SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = %s"
cursor.execute(query, (user_id,))

XSS:

// Bad
element.innerHTML = userInput;

// Good
element.textContent = userInput;

Hardcoded secrets:

# Bad
API_KEY = "sk-1234567890abcdef"

# Good
API_KEY = os.environ.get("API_KEY")

Best practices

1. Review promptly: Don't make authors wait
2. Be respectful: Focus on code, not the person
3. Explain why: Don't just say what's wrong
4. Suggest alternatives: Show better approaches
5. Use examples: Code examples clarify feedback
6. Pick your battles: Focus on important issues
7. Acknowledge good work: Positive feedback matters
8. Review your own code first: Catch obvious issues
9. Use automated tools: Let tools catch style issues
10. Be consistent: Apply same standards to all code

Tools to use

Linters:

• Python: pylint, flake8, black
• JavaScript: eslint, prettier
• Go: golint, gofmt
• Rust: clippy, rustfmt

Security:

• Bandit (Python)
• npm audit (Node.js)
• OWASP Dependency-Check

Code quality:

• SonarQube
• CodeClimate
• Codacy

References

• Google Code Review Guidelines
• OWASP Top 10
• Clean Code by Robert C. Martin

Examples

Example 1: Basic usage

<!-- Add example content here -->

Example 2: Advanced usage

<!-- Add advanced example content here -->