Spaces:
Running
Running
File size: 2,212 Bytes
81aa0b5 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 | ---
name: code-review
description: Review code for bugs, simplicity, DRY violations, and project conventions. Use when the user asks for a review or before committing changes.
language: any
tags: review, quality, bugs, refactoring
---
# Code Review
Review code with high signal and low noise. We only want HIGH SIGNAL issues.
## What to flag
Flag issues where:
- The code will fail to compile or parse (syntax errors, type errors, missing imports, unresolved references)
- The code will definitely produce wrong results regardless of inputs (clear logic errors)
- Clear, unambiguous project convention violations where you can quote the exact rule being broken
- Security issues (hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, XSS, path traversal, command injection)
- Resource leaks (unclosed files, connections, etc.)
## What NOT to flag
Do NOT flag:
- Code style or quality concerns (subjective)
- Potential issues that depend on specific inputs or state
- Subjective suggestions or improvements
- Issues a linter will catch
- Pre-existing issues outside the diff
- Pedantic nitpicks that a senior engineer would not flag
## Process
1. **Read all changed files** using `read_file`. If the user mentions a diff, focus on the changed lines plus surrounding context.
2. **Run parallel reviews** mentally:
- Review 1: Bugs and functional correctness — does it do what it claims?
- Review 2: Simplicity/DRY/elegance — can it be simpler?
- Review 3: Project conventions — does it match the codebase style?
3. **Validate each issue**: For each potential issue, check whether it's actually a problem by reading surrounding code.
4. **Filter false positives**: Drop anything you're not certain about.
5. **Present findings** sorted by severity (critical > high > medium > low). For each issue:
- File and line number
- Description of the issue
- Suggested fix (with code snippet if small)
## Output format
If issues found:
```
## Code Review
### Critical
- `path/to/file.py:42` — Description and fix
### High
- `path/to/file.py:50` — Description and fix
### Medium
- ...
```
If no issues:
```
## Code Review
No issues found. Checked for bugs, simplicity, DRY, and project conventions.
```
|