Code Review Skill

Tech Stack: Python 3.11+, pytest, AWS Lambda, Aurora MySQL

Source: Extracted from CLAUDE.md code quality principles and testing patterns.

When to Use This Skill

Use the code-review skill when:

✓ Reviewing pull requests
✓ After implementing significant features
✓ Before merging to main/dev
✓ Auditing legacy code for issues
✓ Post-incident code review

DO NOT use this skill for:

✗ Simple typo fixes (no review needed)
✗ Documentation-only changes
✗ Automated dependency updates (unless major version)

Quick Review Decision Tree

What type of change?
├─ Security-sensitive? (auth, permissions, data access)
│  └─ Review SECURITY.md checklist
│
├─ Performance-critical? (Lambda, DB queries, API calls)
│  └─ Review PERFORMANCE.md checklist
│
├─ Distributed system? (Lambda, Aurora, S3, SQS, Step Functions)
│  └─ Review Boundary Verification section + execution-boundaries.md
│
├─ Error handling? (try/catch, validation, failures)
│  └─ Review DEFENSIVE.md checklist
│
├─ Tests added/modified?
│  └─ Check testing-workflow skill anti-patterns
│
└─ General code quality?
   └─ Review all sections

Core Review Principles

Principle 1: Fail Fast and Visibly

From CLAUDE.md:

"Fail fast and visibly when something is wrong. Silent failures hide bugs."

Review Checklist:

# ❌ REJECT: Silent failure
def store_report(symbol, data):
    try:
        result = db.execute(query, params)
        return True  # Always returns True!
    except Exception as e:
        logger.warning(f"DB error: {e}")  # Logged at WARNING
        return True  # ❌ Still returns True!

# ✅ APPROVE: Explicit failure
def store_report(symbol, data):
    rowcount = db.execute(query, params)
    if rowcount == 0:
        logger.error(f"INSERT affected 0 rows for {symbol}")
        return False  # ✅ Explicit failure signal
    return True

Questions to Ask:

[ ] Does this function check operation outcomes (not just exceptions)?
[ ] Are errors logged at ERROR level (not WARNING)?
[ ] Does the function return explicit success/failure indicators?

Principle 2: Validate Prerequisites

From CLAUDE.md:

"Before executing a workflow node, validate that all prerequisite data exists and is non-empty."

Review Checklist:

# ❌ REJECT: Assumes upstream succeeded
def analyze_technical(state: AgentState) -> AgentState:
    result = analyzer.calculate_indicators(state['ticker_data'])
    state['indicators'] = result  # Might be {} if ticker_data was empty!
    return state

# ✅ APPROVE: Validates prerequisites
def analyze_technical(state: AgentState) -> AgentState:
    # VALIDATION GATE
    if not state.get('ticker_data') or len(state['ticker_data']) == 0:
        logger.error(f"Cannot analyze: ticker_data is empty for {state['ticker']}")
        state['error'] = "Missing ticker data"
        return state

    # Safe to proceed
    result = analyzer.calculate_indicators(state['ticker_data'])
    state['indicators'] = result
    return state

Questions to Ask:

[ ] Does this function validate inputs before processing?
[ ] Does it check that prerequisite data exists AND is non-empty?
[ ] Does it fail explicitly if prerequisites are missing?

Principle 3: No Silent None Propagation

From CLAUDE.md:

"Functions that return None on failure create cascading silent failures."

Review Checklist:

# ❌ REJECT: Returns None hides failures
def fetch_ticker_data(ticker: str):
    hist = yf.download(ticker, period='1y')
    if hist is None or hist.empty:
        logger.warning(f"No data for {ticker}")
        return None  # ✗ Caller doesn't know WHY it failed

# ✅ APPROVE: Raises explicit exception
def fetch_ticker_data(ticker: str):
    hist = yf.download(ticker, period='1y')
    if hist is None or hist.empty:
        error_msg = f"No historical data for {ticker}"
        logger.error(error_msg)
        raise ValueError(error_msg)  # ✓ Explicit failure

Questions to Ask:

[ ] Does this function return None on error?
[ ] Would an exception be more appropriate?
[ ] Does the caller know HOW to handle None?

Review Checklists by Category

Security Review

See SECURITY.md for:

Authentication/authorization
SQL injection prevention
XSS prevention
Secrets management
Input validation

Performance Review

See PERFORMANCE.md for:

Lambda cold start optimization
Database query patterns
Caching strategies
External API efficiency

Defensive Programming Review

See DEFENSIVE.md for:

Error handling patterns
Validation gates
Boundary type checking
Silent failure detection

Boundary Verification Review

When: Code changes affect distributed systems (Lambda, Aurora, S3, SQS, Step Functions)

Checklist:

[ ] WHERE: Execution environment identified (Lambda, EC2, local)?
[ ] WHAT env: Environment variables verified (Terraform/Doppler)?
[ ] WHAT services: External systems identified (Aurora schema, S3 bucket)?
[ ] WHAT properties: Entity configuration verified (timeout, memory, concurrency)?
[ ] WHAT intention: Usage matches designed purpose (sync vs async)?
[ ] Contract verification: Boundaries verified through ground truth (not just code inspection)

Common boundary failures to catch:

❌ Missing env var (code expects, Terraform doesn't provide)
❌ Schema mismatch (code INSERT vs Aurora columns)
❌ Permission denied (IAM role vs resource policy)
❌ Timeout mismatch (code needs 120s, Lambda configured 30s)
❌ Intention violation (sync Lambda for async workload)

Quick checks:

# Verify Lambda configuration matches code requirements
aws lambda get-function-configuration \
  --function-name <name> \
  --query '{Timeout:Timeout, Memory:MemorySize}'

# Verify Aurora schema matches code
mysql> SHOW COLUMNS FROM table_name;

# Verify IAM permissions
aws iam get-role-policy --role-name <role> --policy-name <policy>

See: Execution Boundary Checklist for comprehensive verification

Related: Principle #20 (CLAUDE.md) - Execution Boundary Discipline

Common Code Smells

Smell 1: God Object

Symptom: Single class/module with >500 lines doing many things.

# ❌ BAD: God object
class ReportService:
    """1200 lines - does everything!"""

    def fetch_data(self): pass
    def analyze_technical(self): pass
    def analyze_fundamental(self): pass
    def fetch_news(self): pass
    def generate_report(self): pass
    def score_report(self): pass
    def send_to_user(self): pass
    def log_to_analytics(self): pass
    # ... 20 more methods

# ✅ GOOD: Separated concerns
class DataFetcher:
    def fetch_ticker_data(self): pass

class TechnicalAnalyzer:
    def analyze(self): pass

class ReportGenerator:
    def generate(self): pass

Review Action: Request refactoring if class > 500 LOC or > 10 methods.

Smell 2: Magic Numbers

# ❌ BAD: Magic numbers
if rsi > 70:  # What does 70 mean?
    return "Overbought"

if len(price_history) < 30:  # Why 30?
    raise ValueError("Insufficient data")

# ✅ GOOD: Named constants
RSI_OVERBOUGHT_THRESHOLD = 70
MIN_PRICE_HISTORY_DAYS = 30

if rsi > RSI_OVERBOUGHT_THRESHOLD:
    return "Overbought"

if len(price_history) < MIN_PRICE_HISTORY_DAYS:
    raise ValueError(f"Need {MIN_PRICE_HISTORY_DAYS} days of data")

Smell 3: Long Parameter List

# ❌ BAD: 7 parameters
def generate_report(ticker, price, sma20, sma50, rsi, macd, volume):
    pass

# ✅ GOOD: Parameter object
from dataclasses import dataclass

@dataclass
class MarketData:
    ticker: str
    price: float
    sma20: float
    sma50: float
    rsi: float
    macd: dict
    volume: int

def generate_report(data: MarketData):
    pass

Review Action: Request refactoring if function has > 4 parameters.

Testing Review

Anti-Pattern 1: The Liar (Can't Fail)

# ❌ REJECT: Test that can't fail
def test_store_report(self):
    mock_client = MagicMock()
    service.store_report('NVDA19', 'report')
    mock_client.execute.assert_called()  # Only checks "was it called?"

# ✅ APPROVE: Test that can actually fail
def test_store_report_detects_failure(self):
    mock_client = MagicMock()
    mock_client.execute.return_value = 0  # Simulate failure
    result = service.store_report('NVDA19', 'report')
    assert result is False

Review Question: "If I break the code, does this test fail?"

Anti-Pattern 2: Happy Path Only

# ❌ REJECT: Only success tested
def test_fetch_ticker(self):
    mock_yf.download.return_value = sample_dataframe
    result = service.fetch('NVDA')
    assert result is not None

# ✅ APPROVE: Both success AND failure
def test_fetch_ticker_success(self):
    mock_yf.download.return_value = sample_dataframe
    result = service.fetch('NVDA')
    assert len(result) > 0

def test_fetch_ticker_handles_empty(self):
    mock_yf.download.return_value = pd.DataFrame()
    with pytest.raises(ValueError):
        service.fetch('INVALID')

Review Question: "Are failure paths tested?"

PR Review Process

Step 1: High-Level Review (5 minutes)

# Check PR description
# - What problem does this solve?
# - Why this approach?
# - Any breaking changes?

# Check files changed
gh pr diff 123

# Size check
LINES_CHANGED=$(gh pr diff 123 --stat | tail -1)
# If > 500 lines, ask to split PR

Questions:

[ ] Is PR description clear?
[ ] Are changes focused (not mixing features)?
[ ] Is PR size reasonable (< 500 lines)?

Step 2: Security Review (10 minutes)

See SECURITY.md for detailed checklist.

Quick checks:

[ ] No secrets hardcoded?
[ ] Input validation present?
[ ] SQL injection safe?
[ ] XSS prevention?

Step 3: Logic Review (20 minutes)

# Read the code, ask:

# 1. Does it handle errors?
try:
    result = risky_operation()
except SpecificException as e:  # ✅ Specific exception
    logger.error(f"Failed: {e}")
    raise  # ✅ Re-raise or return False

# 2. Does it validate inputs?
if not ticker or len(ticker) > 10:
    raise ValueError("Invalid ticker")

# 3. Does it check outcomes?
rowcount = db.execute(query)
if rowcount == 0:
    return False  # Explicit failure

Step 4: Test Review (10 minutes)

# Run tests locally
gh pr checkout 123
pytest

# Check test coverage
pytest --cov=src/module tests/test_module.py

# Review test quality (not just quantity)

Questions:

[ ] Are new features tested?
[ ] Are edge cases covered?
[ ] Do tests follow patterns (see testing-workflow skill)?

Step 5: Performance Review (5 minutes)

See PERFORMANCE.md for detailed checklist.

Quick checks:

[ ] N+1 query pattern avoided?
[ ] Caching appropriate?
[ ] Lambda timeout reasonable?

Step 6: Boundary Verification (If distributed system changes)

When to apply: PR modifies Lambda, Aurora, S3, SQS, Step Functions, or cross-service integrations

Quick assessment:

# Check if PR touches distributed system boundaries
git diff main...PR-branch | grep -E "lambda|aurora|s3|sqs|stepfunctions"

If YES, verify boundaries:

[ ] Execution environment: WHERE does modified code run?
[ ] Environment variables: Code expectations vs Terraform reality?
[ ] External services: Schema/format contracts verified?
[ ] Entity configuration: Timeout/memory match code requirements?
[ ] Usage intention: Sync/async pattern matches entity design?

Example checks:

# Lambda timeout matches code execution time?
aws lambda get-function-configuration --function-name <name> \
  --query 'Timeout'
# Compare with code's longest execution path

# Aurora schema matches INSERT queries?
mysql> SHOW COLUMNS FROM table_name;
# Compare with code's INSERT/UPDATE queries

# IAM permissions allow code's operations?
aws iam get-role-policy --role-name <role> --policy-name <policy>
# Compare with code's aws sdk calls

See: Execution Boundary Checklist for comprehensive verification

Skip if: PR only touches frontend, documentation, or single-process logic

Approval Checklist

Before approving PR, verify ALL of these:

Correctness

[ ] Logic is sound
[ ] Edge cases handled
[ ] Error handling present
[ ] Tests pass

Security

[ ] No hardcoded secrets
[ ] Input validated
[ ] SQL injection safe
[ ] XSS safe

Performance

[ ] No obvious bottlenecks
[ ] Caching used appropriately
[ ] DB queries optimized

Code Quality

[ ] Follows project style
[ ] Functions < 50 LOC
[ ] Classes < 500 LOC
[ ] Clear naming

Testing

[ ] New code tested
[ ] Both success and failure paths
[ ] No test anti-patterns

Documentation

[ ] Docstrings present
[ ] Complex logic commented
[ ] README updated if needed

Boundary Verification (Distributed Systems)

[ ] Execution boundaries identified (WHERE code runs)
[ ] Environment variables verified (Terraform/Doppler match code)
[ ] External service contracts verified (Aurora schema, S3 format, API payload)
[ ] Entity configuration verified (timeout, memory, concurrency)
[ ] Usage intention verified (sync/async pattern matches design)
[ ] Progressive evidence applied (verified through ground truth, not just code)

Quick Reference

Review Time Budget

| PR Size | Review Time | Focus Areas | |---------|-------------|-------------| | < 50 lines | 10 min | Logic, tests | | 50-200 lines | 30 min | All checklists | | 200-500 lines | 60 min | Deep review | | > 500 lines | Request split | Too large |

Common Rejection Reasons

| Issue | Severity | Action | |-------|----------|--------| | Hardcoded secrets | Critical | Reject immediately | | No error handling | High | Request changes | | No tests | High | Request tests | | Silent failures | High | Request explicit failures | | Magic numbers | Medium | Request refactoring | | Missing docstrings | Low | Request docs |

File Organization

.claude/skills/code-review/
├── SKILL.md          # This file (entry point)
├── SECURITY.md       # Security review checklist
├── PERFORMANCE.md    # Performance review patterns
└── DEFENSIVE.md      # Defensive programming review

Next Steps

For security review: See SECURITY.md
For performance review: See PERFORMANCE.md
For defensive review: See DEFENSIVE.md
For test patterns: See testing-workflow skill

References

Google Engineering Practices: Code Review
The Art of Readable Code
Clean Code
Code Review Best Practices

Code Review Skill

Tech Stack: Python 3.11+, pytest, AWS Lambda, Aurora MySQL

Source: Extracted from CLAUDE.md code quality principles and testing patterns.

When to Use This Skill

Use the code-review skill when:

✓ Reviewing pull requests
✓ After implementing significant features
✓ Before merging to main/dev
✓ Auditing legacy code for issues
✓ Post-incident code review

DO NOT use this skill for:

✗ Simple typo fixes (no review needed)
✗ Documentation-only changes
✗ Automated dependency updates (unless major version)

Quick Review Decision Tree

What type of change?
├─ Security-sensitive? (auth, permissions, data access)
│  └─ Review SECURITY.md checklist
│
├─ Performance-critical? (Lambda, DB queries, API calls)
│  └─ Review PERFORMANCE.md checklist
│
├─ Distributed system? (Lambda, Aurora, S3, SQS, Step Functions)
│  └─ Review Boundary Verification section + execution-boundaries.md
│
├─ Error handling? (try/catch, validation, failures)
│  └─ Review DEFENSIVE.md checklist
│
├─ Tests added/modified?
│  └─ Check testing-workflow skill anti-patterns
│
└─ General code quality?
   └─ Review all sections

Core Review Principles

Principle 1: Fail Fast and Visibly

From CLAUDE.md:

"Fail fast and visibly when something is wrong. Silent failures hide bugs."

Review Checklist:

# ❌ REJECT: Silent failure
def store_report(symbol, data):
    try:
        result = db.execute(query, params)
        return True  # Always returns True!
    except Exception as e:
        logger.warning(f"DB error: {e}")  # Logged at WARNING
        return True  # ❌ Still returns True!

# ✅ APPROVE: Explicit failure
def store_report(symbol, data):
    rowcount = db.execute(query, params)
    if rowcount == 0:
        logger.error(f"INSERT affected 0 rows for {symbol}")
        return False  # ✅ Explicit failure signal
    return True

Questions to Ask:

[ ] Does this function check operation outcomes (not just exceptions)?
[ ] Are errors logged at ERROR level (not WARNING)?
[ ] Does the function return explicit success/failure indicators?

Principle 2: Validate Prerequisites

From CLAUDE.md:

"Before executing a workflow node, validate that all prerequisite data exists and is non-empty."

Review Checklist:

# ❌ REJECT: Assumes upstream succeeded
def analyze_technical(state: AgentState) -> AgentState:
    result = analyzer.calculate_indicators(state['ticker_data'])
    state['indicators'] = result  # Might be {} if ticker_data was empty!
    return state

# ✅ APPROVE: Validates prerequisites
def analyze_technical(state: AgentState) -> AgentState:
    # VALIDATION GATE
    if not state.get('ticker_data') or len(state['ticker_data']) == 0:
        logger.error(f"Cannot analyze: ticker_data is empty for {state['ticker']}")
        state['error'] = "Missing ticker data"
        return state

    # Safe to proceed
    result = analyzer.calculate_indicators(state['ticker_data'])
    state['indicators'] = result
    return state

Questions to Ask:

[ ] Does this function validate inputs before processing?
[ ] Does it check that prerequisite data exists AND is non-empty?
[ ] Does it fail explicitly if prerequisites are missing?

Principle 3: No Silent None Propagation

From CLAUDE.md:

"Functions that return None on failure create cascading silent failures."

Review Checklist:

# ❌ REJECT: Returns None hides failures
def fetch_ticker_data(ticker: str):
    hist = yf.download(ticker, period='1y')
    if hist is None or hist.empty:
        logger.warning(f"No data for {ticker}")
        return None  # ✗ Caller doesn't know WHY it failed

# ✅ APPROVE: Raises explicit exception
def fetch_ticker_data(ticker: str):
    hist = yf.download(ticker, period='1y')
    if hist is None or hist.empty:
        error_msg = f"No historical data for {ticker}"
        logger.error(error_msg)
        raise ValueError(error_msg)  # ✓ Explicit failure

Questions to Ask:

[ ] Does this function return None on error?
[ ] Would an exception be more appropriate?
[ ] Does the caller know HOW to handle None?

Review Checklists by Category

Security Review

See SECURITY.md for:

Authentication/authorization
SQL injection prevention
XSS prevention
Secrets management
Input validation

Performance Review

See PERFORMANCE.md for:

Lambda cold start optimization
Database query patterns
Caching strategies
External API efficiency

Defensive Programming Review

See DEFENSIVE.md for:

Error handling patterns
Validation gates
Boundary type checking
Silent failure detection

Boundary Verification Review

When: Code changes affect distributed systems (Lambda, Aurora, S3, SQS, Step Functions)

Checklist:

[ ] WHERE: Execution environment identified (Lambda, EC2, local)?
[ ] WHAT env: Environment variables verified (Terraform/Doppler)?
[ ] WHAT services: External systems identified (Aurora schema, S3 bucket)?
[ ] WHAT properties: Entity configuration verified (timeout, memory, concurrency)?
[ ] WHAT intention: Usage matches designed purpose (sync vs async)?
[ ] Contract verification: Boundaries verified through ground truth (not just code inspection)

Common boundary failures to catch:

❌ Missing env var (code expects, Terraform doesn't provide)
❌ Schema mismatch (code INSERT vs Aurora columns)
❌ Permission denied (IAM role vs resource policy)
❌ Timeout mismatch (code needs 120s, Lambda configured 30s)
❌ Intention violation (sync Lambda for async workload)

Quick checks:

# Verify Lambda configuration matches code requirements
aws lambda get-function-configuration \
  --function-name <name> \
  --query '{Timeout:Timeout, Memory:MemorySize}'

# Verify Aurora schema matches code
mysql> SHOW COLUMNS FROM table_name;

# Verify IAM permissions
aws iam get-role-policy --role-name <role> --policy-name <policy>

See: Execution Boundary Checklist for comprehensive verification

Related: Principle #20 (CLAUDE.md) - Execution Boundary Discipline

Common Code Smells

Smell 1: God Object

Symptom: Single class/module with >500 lines doing many things.

# ❌ BAD: God object
class ReportService:
    """1200 lines - does everything!"""

    def fetch_data(self): pass
    def analyze_technical(self): pass
    def analyze_fundamental(self): pass
    def fetch_news(self): pass
    def generate_report(self): pass
    def score_report(self): pass
    def send_to_user(self): pass
    def log_to_analytics(self): pass
    # ... 20 more methods

# ✅ GOOD: Separated concerns
class DataFetcher:
    def fetch_ticker_data(self): pass

class TechnicalAnalyzer:
    def analyze(self): pass

class ReportGenerator:
    def generate(self): pass

Review Action: Request refactoring if class > 500 LOC or > 10 methods.

Smell 2: Magic Numbers

# ❌ BAD: Magic numbers
if rsi > 70:  # What does 70 mean?
    return "Overbought"

if len(price_history) < 30:  # Why 30?
    raise ValueError("Insufficient data")

# ✅ GOOD: Named constants
RSI_OVERBOUGHT_THRESHOLD = 70
MIN_PRICE_HISTORY_DAYS = 30

if rsi > RSI_OVERBOUGHT_THRESHOLD:
    return "Overbought"

if len(price_history) < MIN_PRICE_HISTORY_DAYS:
    raise ValueError(f"Need {MIN_PRICE_HISTORY_DAYS} days of data")

Smell 3: Long Parameter List

# ❌ BAD: 7 parameters
def generate_report(ticker, price, sma20, sma50, rsi, macd, volume):
    pass

# ✅ GOOD: Parameter object
from dataclasses import dataclass

@dataclass
class MarketData:
    ticker: str
    price: float
    sma20: float
    sma50: float
    rsi: float
    macd: dict
    volume: int

def generate_report(data: MarketData):
    pass

Review Action: Request refactoring if function has > 4 parameters.

Testing Review

Anti-Pattern 1: The Liar (Can't Fail)

# ❌ REJECT: Test that can't fail
def test_store_report(self):
    mock_client = MagicMock()
    service.store_report('NVDA19', 'report')
    mock_client.execute.assert_called()  # Only checks "was it called?"

# ✅ APPROVE: Test that can actually fail
def test_store_report_detects_failure(self):
    mock_client = MagicMock()
    mock_client.execute.return_value = 0  # Simulate failure
    result = service.store_report('NVDA19', 'report')
    assert result is False

Review Question: "If I break the code, does this test fail?"

Anti-Pattern 2: Happy Path Only

# ❌ REJECT: Only success tested
def test_fetch_ticker(self):
    mock_yf.download.return_value = sample_dataframe
    result = service.fetch('NVDA')
    assert result is not None

# ✅ APPROVE: Both success AND failure
def test_fetch_ticker_success(self):
    mock_yf.download.return_value = sample_dataframe
    result = service.fetch('NVDA')
    assert len(result) > 0

def test_fetch_ticker_handles_empty(self):
    mock_yf.download.return_value = pd.DataFrame()
    with pytest.raises(ValueError):
        service.fetch('INVALID')

Review Question: "Are failure paths tested?"

PR Review Process

Step 1: High-Level Review (5 minutes)

# Check PR description
# - What problem does this solve?
# - Why this approach?
# - Any breaking changes?

# Check files changed
gh pr diff 123

# Size check
LINES_CHANGED=$(gh pr diff 123 --stat | tail -1)
# If > 500 lines, ask to split PR

Questions:

[ ] Is PR description clear?
[ ] Are changes focused (not mixing features)?
[ ] Is PR size reasonable (< 500 lines)?

Step 2: Security Review (10 minutes)

See SECURITY.md for detailed checklist.

Quick checks:

[ ] No secrets hardcoded?
[ ] Input validation present?
[ ] SQL injection safe?
[ ] XSS prevention?

Step 3: Logic Review (20 minutes)

# Read the code, ask:

# 1. Does it handle errors?
try:
    result = risky_operation()
except SpecificException as e:  # ✅ Specific exception
    logger.error(f"Failed: {e}")
    raise  # ✅ Re-raise or return False

# 2. Does it validate inputs?
if not ticker or len(ticker) > 10:
    raise ValueError("Invalid ticker")

# 3. Does it check outcomes?
rowcount = db.execute(query)
if rowcount == 0:
    return False  # Explicit failure

Step 4: Test Review (10 minutes)

# Run tests locally
gh pr checkout 123
pytest

# Check test coverage
pytest --cov=src/module tests/test_module.py

# Review test quality (not just quantity)

Questions:

[ ] Are new features tested?
[ ] Are edge cases covered?
[ ] Do tests follow patterns (see testing-workflow skill)?

Step 5: Performance Review (5 minutes)

See PERFORMANCE.md for detailed checklist.

Quick checks:

[ ] N+1 query pattern avoided?
[ ] Caching appropriate?
[ ] Lambda timeout reasonable?

Step 6: Boundary Verification (If distributed system changes)

When to apply: PR modifies Lambda, Aurora, S3, SQS, Step Functions, or cross-service integrations

Quick assessment:

# Check if PR touches distributed system boundaries
git diff main...PR-branch | grep -E "lambda|aurora|s3|sqs|stepfunctions"

If YES, verify boundaries:

[ ] Execution environment: WHERE does modified code run?
[ ] Environment variables: Code expectations vs Terraform reality?
[ ] External services: Schema/format contracts verified?
[ ] Entity configuration: Timeout/memory match code requirements?
[ ] Usage intention: Sync/async pattern matches entity design?

Example checks:

# Lambda timeout matches code execution time?
aws lambda get-function-configuration --function-name <name> \
  --query 'Timeout'
# Compare with code's longest execution path

# Aurora schema matches INSERT queries?
mysql> SHOW COLUMNS FROM table_name;
# Compare with code's INSERT/UPDATE queries

# IAM permissions allow code's operations?
aws iam get-role-policy --role-name <role> --policy-name <policy>
# Compare with code's aws sdk calls

See: Execution Boundary Checklist for comprehensive verification

Skip if: PR only touches frontend, documentation, or single-process logic

Approval Checklist

Before approving PR, verify ALL of these:

Correctness

[ ] Logic is sound
[ ] Edge cases handled
[ ] Error handling present
[ ] Tests pass

Security

[ ] No hardcoded secrets
[ ] Input validated
[ ] SQL injection safe
[ ] XSS safe

Performance

[ ] No obvious bottlenecks
[ ] Caching used appropriately
[ ] DB queries optimized

Code Quality

[ ] Follows project style
[ ] Functions < 50 LOC
[ ] Classes < 500 LOC
[ ] Clear naming

Testing

[ ] New code tested
[ ] Both success and failure paths
[ ] No test anti-patterns

Documentation

[ ] Docstrings present
[ ] Complex logic commented
[ ] README updated if needed

Boundary Verification (Distributed Systems)

[ ] Execution boundaries identified (WHERE code runs)
[ ] Environment variables verified (Terraform/Doppler match code)
[ ] External service contracts verified (Aurora schema, S3 format, API payload)
[ ] Entity configuration verified (timeout, memory, concurrency)
[ ] Usage intention verified (sync/async pattern matches design)
[ ] Progressive evidence applied (verified through ground truth, not just code)

Quick Reference

Review Time Budget

Common Rejection Reasons

File Organization

.claude/skills/code-review/
├── SKILL.md          # This file (entry point)
├── SECURITY.md       # Security review checklist
├── PERFORMANCE.md    # Performance review patterns
└── DEFENSIVE.md      # Defensive programming review

Next Steps

For security review: See SECURITY.md
For performance review: See PERFORMANCE.md
For defensive review: See DEFENSIVE.md
For test patterns: See testing-workflow skill

References

Google Engineering Practices: Code Review
The Art of Readable Code
Clean Code
Code Review Best Practices

Adoption

awannaphasch2016/code-review

$ install --global

Security Scan Results

SKILL.md

Code Review Skill

When to Use This Skill

Quick Review Decision Tree

Core Review Principles

Principle 1: Fail Fast and Visibly

Principle 2: Validate Prerequisites

Principle 3: No Silent None Propagation

Review Checklists by Category

Security Review

Performance Review

Defensive Programming Review

Boundary Verification Review

Common Code Smells

Smell 1: God Object

Smell 2: Magic Numbers

Smell 3: Long Parameter List

Testing Review

Anti-Pattern 1: The Liar (Can't Fail)

Anti-Pattern 2: Happy Path Only

PR Review Process

Step 1: High-Level Review (5 minutes)

Step 2: Security Review (10 minutes)

Step 3: Logic Review (20 minutes)

Step 4: Test Review (10 minutes)

Step 5: Performance Review (5 minutes)

Step 6: Boundary Verification (If distributed system changes)

Approval Checklist

Correctness

Security

Performance

Code Quality

Testing

Documentation

Boundary Verification (Distributed Systems)

Quick Reference

Review Time Budget

Common Rejection Reasons

File Organization

Next Steps

References

Related Skills

awannaphasch2016/webapp-testing

awannaphasch2016/testing-workflow

awannaphasch2016/template-cloning

awannaphasch2016/sales-landing-page

awannaphasch2016/code-review

$ install --global

Security Scan Results

SKILL.md

Code Review Skill

When to Use This Skill

Quick Review Decision Tree

Core Review Principles

Principle 1: Fail Fast and Visibly

Principle 2: Validate Prerequisites

Principle 3: No Silent None Propagation

Review Checklists by Category

Security Review

Performance Review

Defensive Programming Review

Boundary Verification Review

Common Code Smells

Smell 1: God Object

Smell 2: Magic Numbers

Smell 3: Long Parameter List

Testing Review

Anti-Pattern 1: The Liar (Can't Fail)

Anti-Pattern 2: Happy Path Only

PR Review Process

Step 1: High-Level Review (5 minutes)

Step 2: Security Review (10 minutes)

Step 3: Logic Review (20 minutes)

Step 4: Test Review (10 minutes)

Step 5: Performance Review (5 minutes)

Step 6: Boundary Verification (If distributed system changes)