code-review-standards

Systematic approach to code review. Use this skill when:

• Performing code reviews
• Defining review criteria for a project
• Understanding severity levels for findings
• Creating code review documents

---

Review Focus Areas

Use this checklist when reviewing implementation code:

| Category | What to Review | |----------|----------------| | Architecture Alignment | Does implementation match Architect's design? Follows system-architecture.md patterns? | | SOLID Principles | SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP violations (load engineering-standards for detection patterns) | | DRY/YAGNI/KISS | Duplication, speculative generalization, over-complexity | | TDD Compliance | TDD Compliance table present in implementation doc? All rows show test-first? | | Code Smells | Long Method, Large Class, Feature Envy, etc. (see engineering-standards) | | Documentation & Comments | Appropriate inline comments explaining "why" (not "what"), function docstrings, module-level docs, complex logic explained | | Naming & Clarity | Self-documenting names, appropriate abstractions, readable code | | Error Handling | Defensive coding, graceful failures, appropriate exceptions | | Security Quick Scan | Obvious vulnerabilities (injection, exposed secrets, hardcoded creds) | | Performance | Obvious inefficiencies, N+1 patterns, memory leaks | | Observability | Appropriate logging, telemetry for debugging |

---

Severity Levels

| Severity | Definition | Action | |----------|------------|--------| | CRITICAL | Security vulnerability, data loss risk, architectural violation | REJECT - must fix | | HIGH | Anti-pattern, significant maintainability issue, missing tests | REJECT - must fix | | MEDIUM | Code smell, minor design issue, unclear code | Fix recommended, may approve with comments | | LOW | Style preference, minor optimization opportunity | Note for future, approve | | INFO | Observation, suggestion for improvement | FYI only |

When to Reject

• Any CRITICAL finding → REJECT
• Any HIGH finding → REJECT
• 3+ MEDIUM findings in same file → Consider REJECT
• Pattern of MEDIUM findings across files → Consider REJECT

---

Finding Format

When documenting findings, use this format:

**[SEVERITY] [Category]**: [Brief title]
- **Location**: `path/to/file.py:L42-L55`
- **Issue**: [What's wrong and why it matters]
- **Recommendation**: [Specific fix suggestion]

Example:

**[HIGH] Documentation**: Missing docstrings on public API
- **Location**: `src/api/handlers.py:L15-L45`
- **Issue**: Public functions `create_user()` and `delete_user()` lack docstrings. Future maintainers won't understand expected inputs/outputs.
- **Recommendation**: Add Google-style docstrings with Args, Returns, and Raises sections.

---

Code Review Document Template

Create in agent-output/code-review/ matching plan name:

# Code Review: [Plan Name]

**Plan Reference**: `agent-output/planning/[plan-name].md`
**Implementation Reference**: `agent-output/implementation/[plan-name]-implementation.md`
**Date**: [date]
**Reviewer**: Code Reviewer

## Changelog

| Date | Agent Handoff | Request | Summary |
|------|---------------|---------|---------|
| YYYY-MM-DD | [Who handed off] | [What was requested] | [Brief summary] |

## Architecture Alignment

**System Architecture Reference**: `agent-output/architecture/system-architecture.md`
**Alignment Status**: ALIGNED / MINOR_DEVIATIONS / MAJOR_DEVIATIONS

[Assessment of how implementation aligns with architectural decisions]

## TDD Compliance Check

**TDD Table Present**: Yes / No
**All Rows Complete**: Yes / No
**Concerns**: [Any issues with TDD compliance]

## Findings

### Critical
[List of critical findings, or "None"]

### High
[List of high findings, or "None"]

### Medium
[List of medium findings, or "None"]

### Low/Info
[List of low/info findings, or "None"]

## Positive Observations

[Acknowledge good patterns, well-written code, or improvements]

## Verdict

**Status**: APPROVED / APPROVED_WITH_COMMENTS / REJECTED
**Rationale**: [Brief explanation]

## Required Actions

[If rejected: specific list of fixes required]
[If approved with comments: optional improvements]

## Next Steps

[Handoff to Implementer for fixes / Handoff to QA for testing]

---

Review Best Practices

1. Be constructive: Explain WHY something is an issue, not just THAT it's an issue
2. Be specific: File paths, line numbers, code snippets
3. Provide solutions: Concrete fix suggestions, not just criticism
4. Acknowledge good work: Note positive patterns when you see them
5. Prioritize: Focus on impactful issues, not nitpicks
6. Context matters: Consider the plan's constraints and timeline