Code Review

Chinese version： See the corresponding Chinese skill.

When to Use

• Need to review a PR / diff / commit and catch logic, security, financial-loss, or maintainability risks before merge.
• Need a P0/P1/P2-ranked report with locations and actionable fix guidance.
• Need a QA / engineering-quality lens beyond author self-review.

Workflow

1. Read and follow the main prompt listed under Progressive disclosure (coverage, structure, quality bar).
2. Before reviewing, confirm both an identifiable code version and its reviewable changes; if either is missing, return a blocked result and request the exact material.
3. Add only project context that changes the result: change scope, business goal, stack, upstream/downstream deps, known risks, team norms.
4. Treat role reports as optional, source-identified context; use Product and UI/UX reports only when this change touches their concerns.
5. Default to Markdown; switch formats only when the user asks.

Core Constraints

• Risk-driven: prioritize production failures, financial loss, security, and core maintainability — not naming/indent noise.
• Evidence-based: prefer file path, line, or snippet plus trigger path and impact for each finding.
• Two gates: require both identifiable code version (for example repository + PR / commit / branch / tag / revision) and reviewable change (for example diff/patch, changed-file contents, or an accessible base-to-head range). Code identity, change content, and role reports cannot substitute for one another.
• If either gate is missing, explicitly return status: blocked and distinguish missing_code_identity from missing_reviewable_change; do not claim review completion, recommend merge, or invent code findings.
• Role reports are optional. When using them, retain source_role. Product reports may add business-rule, state-flow, or acceptance context; UI/UX reports may add UI-state, feedback, responsive, or accessibility context only when relevant. Never present a role view as code fact.
• Strict severity: P0 blocks merge, P1 should fix this iteration, P2 can be tech debt.
• Separate confirmed facts from assumptions; do not invent endpoints, fields, environments, or root causes the user did not provide.
• Critique the code, not the author; respect the current stack — do not demand framework/architecture rewrites without authorization.
• Keep output executable: every finding needs a fix direction or before/after example.

Progressive Disclosure

• Before producing output, read and follow prompts/code-review.md (minimum coverage, output structure, quality bar).
• When Excel/CSV/JSON/Word is requested: read output-formats.md and honor the format.
• When a ready-made template fits: use matching files under output-templates/.
• For deeper review dimensions or severity rubrics: read references/review-dimensions.md.
• For examples or calibration: read matching files under examples/.
• For format conversion or helper checks: prefer existing scripts/ over reinventing.
• For the shortest path: read quick-start.md.
• For evaluating/regressing this skill: use evals/ with skill-up.

Pre-delivery Checklist

• Followed the main prompt's output structure
• Confirmed both code-identity and reviewable-change gates; if blocked, did not issue a completed review or merge recommendation
• Minimum coverage focus: change summary, overall risk rating, P0/P1/P2 list, testability/observability, API/contract compatibility, fix order, residual risks and assumptions… (details in main prompt)
• Covered the minimum checklist, or explained omissions
• High-risk items have explicit P0/P1 severity with rationale
• Did not invent details the user did not provide
• Assumptions and gaps are marked

Common Pitfalls

• Do not treat a code snippet or role report as code identity, or a PR / commit identifier as the diff; block when either gate is missing.
• Do not activate Product or UI/UX concerns merely because a report exists; first establish relevance and retain its source.
• Do not treat every item as equally important, or dump low-value style nits.
• Do not skip assumptions and information gaps.
• Do not force refactors outside the change under review.
• Do not dump generic theory unrelated to this change.