Code Reviewing Skill — Quick Reference

This skill provides operational checklists and prompts for structured code review across languages and stacks. Use it when the primary task is reviewing existing code rather than designing new systems.

Quick Reference

Review Type Focus Areas Key Checklist When to Use

Security Review Auth, input validation, secrets, OWASP Top 10 software-security-appsec Security-critical code, API endpoints

Supply Chain Review Dependencies, lockfiles, licenses, SBOM, CI policies dev-dependency-management Dependency bumps, build/CI changes

Performance Review N+1 queries, algorithms, caching, hot paths DB queries, loops, memory allocation High-traffic features, bottlenecks

Correctness Review Logic, edge cases, error handling, tests Boundary conditions, null checks, retries Business logic, data transformations

Maintainability Review Naming, complexity, duplication, readability Function length, naming clarity, DRY Complex modules, shared code

Test Review Coverage, edge cases, flakiness, assertions Test quality, missing scenarios New features, refactors

Frontend Review Accessibility, responsive design, performance frontend-review.md UI/UX changes

Backend Review API design, error handling, database patterns api-review.md API endpoints, services

Blockchain Review Reentrancy, access control, gas optimization crypto-review.md Smart contracts, DeFi protocols

Specialized: .NET/EF Core Crypto Integration

Skip unless reviewing C#/.NET crypto/fintech services using Entity Framework Core.

For C#/.NET crypto/fintech services using Entity Framework Core, see:

• references/dotnet-efcore-crypto-rules.md — Complete review rules (correctness, security, async, EF Core, tests, MRs)

Key rules summary:

• Review only new/modified code in the MR

• Use decimal for financial values, UTC for dates

• Follow CC-SEC-03 (no secrets in code) and CC-OBS-02 (no sensitive data in logs)

• Async for I/O, pass CancellationToken , avoid .Result /.Wait() (see CC-ERR-04 , CC-FLOW-03 )

• EF Core: AsNoTracking for reads, avoid N+1, no dynamic SQL

• Result<T> pattern for explicit success/fail

When to Use This Skill

Invoke this skill when the user asks to:

• Review a pull request or diff for issues

• Audit code for security vulnerabilities or injection risks

• Improve readability, structure, and maintainability

• Suggest targeted refactors without changing behavior

• Validate tests and edge-case coverage

When NOT to Use This Skill

• System design or architecture: Use software-architecture-design for greenfield architecture decisions

• Writing new code from scratch: This skill reviews existing code, not authoring new features

• Deep security audits: For penetration testing or comprehensive security assessments, use software-security-appsec

• Deep performance investigations: For profiling/observability, use qa-observability and for SQL/query tuning use data-sql-optimization

Decision Tree: Selecting Review Mode

Code review task: [What to Focus On?] ├─ Security-critical changes? │ ├─ Auth/access control → Security Review (OWASP, auth patterns) │ ├─ User input handling → Input validation, XSS, SQL injection │ └─ Smart contracts → Blockchain Review (reentrancy, access control) │ ├─ Performance concerns? │ ├─ Database queries → Check for N+1, missing indexes │ ├─ Loops/algorithms → Complexity analysis, caching │ └─ API response times → Profiling, lazy loading │ ├─ Correctness issues? │ ├─ Business logic → Edge cases, error handling, tests │ ├─ Data transformations → Boundary conditions, null checks │ └─ Integration points → Retry logic, timeouts, fallbacks │ ├─ Maintainability problems? │ ├─ Complex code → Naming, function length, duplication │ ├─ Hard to understand → Comments, abstractions, clarity │ └─ Technical debt → Refactoring suggestions │ ├─ Test coverage gaps? │ ├─ New features → Happy path + error cases │ ├─ Refactors → Regression tests │ └─ Bug fixes → Reproduction tests │ └─ Stack-specific review? ├─ Frontend → frontend-review.md ├─ Backend → api-review.md ├─ Mobile → mobile-review.md ├─ Infrastructure → infrastructure-review.md └─ Blockchain → crypto-review.md

Multi-Mode Reviews:

For complex PRs, apply multiple review modes sequentially:

• Security first (P0/P1 issues)

• Correctness (logic, edge cases)

• Performance (if applicable)

• Maintainability (P2/P3 suggestions)

Async Review Workflows (2026)

Timezone-Friendly Reviews

Practice Implementation

Review windows Define 4-hour overlap windows

Review rotation Assign reviewers across timezones

Async communication Use PR comments, not DMs

Review SLAs 24-hour initial response, 48-hour completion

Non-Blocking Reviews

PR Submitted -> Auto-checks (CI) -> Async Review -> Merge | | | Author continues If green, Reviewer comments on other work queue for when available review

Anti-patterns:

• Synchronous review meetings for routine PRs

• Blocking on reviewer availability for non-critical changes

• Single reviewer bottleneck

Review Prioritization Matrix

Priority Criteria SLA

P0 Security fix, production incident 4 hours

P1 Bug fix, blocking dependency 24 hours

P2 Feature work, tech debt 48 hours

P3 Documentation, refactoring 72 hours

Optional: AI/Automation Extensions

Note: AI-assisted review tools. Human review remains authoritative.

AI Review Assistants

Tool Use Case Limitation

GitHub Copilot PR Summary, suggestions May miss context

CodeRabbit Automated PR review comments Requires human validation

Qodo Test generation + review, 15+ workflows Enterprise pricing

OpenAI Codex System-level codebase context API integration required

AWS Security Agent OWASP Top 10, policy violations Preview only (2026)

Endor Labs AI SAST AI-assisted SAST Security-focused

Graphite PR stacking, stack-aware merge queue Process, not content

AI assistant rules:

• AI suggestions are advisory only

• Human reviewer approves/rejects

• AI cannot bypass security review

• AI findings require manual verification

AI Review Checklist

• AI suggestions validated against codebase patterns

• AI-flagged issues manually confirmed

• False positives documented for tool improvement

• Human reviewer explicitly approved

Simplicity and Complexity Control

• Prefer existing, battle-tested libraries over bespoke implementations when behavior is identical.

• Flag avoidable complexity early: remove dead/commented-out code, collapse duplication, and extract single-responsibility helpers.

• Call out premature optimization; favor clarity and measured, evidence-based tuning.

• Encourage incremental refactors alongside reviews to keep modules small, predictable, and aligned to standards.

Operational Playbooks

Shared Foundation

• ../software-clean-code-standard/references/clean-code-standard.md - Canonical clean code rules (CC-* ) for citation in reviews

• Legacy playbook: ../software-clean-code-standard/references/code-quality-operational-playbook.md - RULE-01 –RULE-13 , refactoring decision trees, and design patterns

Code Review Specific

• references/operational-playbook.md — Review scope rules, severity ratings (P0-P3), checklists, modes, and PR workflow patterns

Default Review Output (Agent-Facing)

When producing a review, default to:

• Short summary of intent + risk

• Findings grouped by P0 /P1 /P2 /P3 (mark REQUIRED vs OPTIONAL)

• Concrete suggestions (minimal diffs or test cases)

• Follow-up questions when requirements or constraints are unclear

Use assets/core/review-comment-guidelines.md for comment style and labeling.

Navigation

Resources

• references/operational-playbook.md

• references/review-checklist-comprehensive.md

• references/implementing-effective-code-reviews-checklist.md

• references/looks-good-to-me-checklist.md

• references/automation-tools.md

• references/dotnet-efcore-crypto-rules.md

• references/psychological-safety-guide.md

• references/large-pr-review-strategies.md

• references/security-focused-review-guide.md

• references/code-review-metrics.md

Templates

• assets/core/pull-request-description-template.md

• assets/core/review-checklist-judgment.md

• assets/core/review-comment-guidelines.md

• assets/backend-api/api-review.md

• assets/web-frontend/frontend-review.md

• assets/mobile/mobile-review.md

• assets/infrastructure/infrastructure-review.md

• assets/blockchain/crypto-review.md

• assets/data-ml/data-pipeline-review.md

• assets/data-ml/experiment-tracking-review.md

• assets/data-ml/ml-model-review.md

• assets/data-ml/ml-deployment-review.md

Data

• data/sources.json — Curated external references

• Shared checklists: ../software-clean-code-standard/assets/checklists/secure-code-review-checklist.md, ../software-clean-code-standard/assets/checklists/backend-api-review-checklist.md

Trend Awareness Protocol

IMPORTANT: When users ask recommendation questions about code review tools, practices, or automation, you MUST use WebSearch to check current trends before answering.

Trigger Conditions

• "What's the best code review tool?"

• "What should I use for [automated code review/PR automation]?"

• "What's the latest in code review practices?"

• "Current best practices for [code review/PR workflow]?"

• "Is [GitHub Copilot PR/CodeRabbit] still relevant in 2026?"

• "[CodeRabbit] vs [Graphite] vs [other]?"

• "Best AI code review assistant?"

Required Searches

• Search: "code review best practices 2026"

• Search: "[specific tool] vs alternatives 2026"

• Search: "AI code review tools January 2026"

• Search: "PR automation trends 2026"

What to Report

After searching, provide:

• Current landscape: What code review tools/practices are popular NOW

• Emerging trends: New AI assistants, PR tools, or review patterns gaining traction

• Deprecated/declining: Tools/approaches losing relevance or support

• Recommendation: Based on fresh data, not just static knowledge

Example Topics (verify with fresh search)

• AI code review (GitHub Copilot PR, CodeRabbit, Cursor)

• PR automation (Graphite, Stacked PRs, merge queues)

• Code review platforms (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket)

• Review bots and automation

• Async review practices for distributed teams

• Review metrics and analytics tools

Fact-Checking

• Use web search/web fetch to verify current external facts, versions, pricing, deadlines, regulations, or platform behavior before final answers.

• Prefer primary sources; report source links and dates for volatile information.

• If web access is unavailable, state the limitation and mark guidance as unverified.