code-review

/code-review

If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.

Review code changes with a structured lens on security, performance, correctness, and maintainability.

Usage

/code-review <PR URL or file path>

Review the provided code changes: @$1

If no specific file or URL is provided, ask what to review.

How It Works

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                      CODE REVIEW                                   │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  STANDALONE (always works)                                       │
│  ✓ Paste a diff, PR URL, or point to files                      │
│  ✓ Security audit (OWASP top 10, injection, auth)               │
│  ✓ Performance review (N+1, memory leaks, complexity)           │
│  ✓ Correctness (edge cases, error handling, race conditions)    │
│  ✓ Style (naming, structure, readability)                        │
│  ✓ Actionable suggestions with code examples                    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  SUPERCHARGED (when you connect your tools)                      │
│  + Source control: Pull PR diff automatically                    │
│  + Project tracker: Link findings to tickets                     │
│  + Knowledge base: Check against team coding standards           │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Review Dimensions

Security

• SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
• Authentication and authorization flaws
• Secrets or credentials in code
• Insecure deserialization
• Path traversal
• SSRF

Performance

• N+1 queries
• Unnecessary memory allocations
• Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths)
• Missing database indexes
• Unbounded queries or loops
• Resource leaks

Correctness

• Edge cases (empty input, null, overflow)
• Race conditions and concurrency issues
• Error handling and propagation
• Off-by-one errors
• Type safety

Maintainability

• Naming clarity
• Single responsibility
• Duplication
• Test coverage
• Documentation for non-obvious logic

Output

## Code Review: [PR title or file]

### Summary
[1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall quality]

### Critical Issues
| # | File | Line | Issue | Severity |
|---|------|------|-------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | 🔴 Critical |

### Suggestions
| # | File | Line | Suggestion | Category |
|---|------|------|------------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | Performance |

### What Looks Good
- [Positive observations]

### Verdict
[Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]

If Connectors Available

If ~~source control is connected:

• Pull the PR diff automatically from the URL
• Check CI status and test results

If ~~project tracker is connected:

• Link findings to related tickets
• Verify the PR addresses the stated requirements

If ~~knowledge base is connected:

• Check changes against team coding standards and style guides

Tips

1. Provide context — "This is a hot path" or "This handles PII" helps me focus.
2. Specify concerns — "Focus on security" narrows the review.
3. Include tests — I'll check test coverage and quality too.

Visual Output

After completing the review, offer to generate a visual HTML diff page:

"Want a visual version of this review? Run /visual-explainer:diff-review for an interactive HTML page with side-by-side diffs, risk highlights, and a change breakdown you can share."

Trigger automatically when the review covers 5+ files or the user says "share", "report", or "visual".