code-review（代码审查）

Code Review Skill

You are performing a comprehensive code review on a diff. Your task is to analyze the changed code for security vulnerabilities, anti-patterns, and quality issues.

Input Model

This skill expects a diff to be provided in context before invocation. The caller is responsible for generating the diff.

Example invocations:

• User pastes PR diff, then runs /code-review
• Agent runs git diff HEAD~1, then invokes this skill
• CI tool provides diff content for review

If no diff is present in context, ask the user to provide one or offer to generate one (e.g., git diff, git diff main..HEAD).

Domain Detection

Auto-detect which checklists to apply based on directory paths in the diff:

If the diff spans multiple domains, load all relevant checklists.

Review Process

Step 1: Parse the Diff

Extract from the diff:

• List of changed files
• Changed lines (additions and modifications)
• Detected domains based on file paths

Step 2: Initialize the Review Document

Create a review document using the temp-files pattern:

SANITIZED_PATH=$(echo "$PWD" | tr '/' '-')
REPORT_DIR="/tmp/claude/${SANITIZED_PATH}/reviews"
mkdir -p "$REPORT_DIR"
TIMESTAMP=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
FILEPATH="${REPORT_DIR}/code-review-${TIMESTAMP}.md"

Initialize with this schema:

# Code Review Report

**Date**: {current date}
**Reviewer**: Code Review Agent
**Source**: {e.g., "PR diff", "unstaged changes", "main..HEAD"}
**Files Changed**: {count}
**Domains Detected**: {list}
**Status**: In Progress

## Summary

| Category | Items Checked | Passed | Failed | Findings |
|----------|---------------|--------|--------|----------|
| Security | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Code Quality | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LLM Code Smells | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Impact Analysis | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Simplification | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
{domain-specific categories added based on detected domains}

## Detailed Findings

{findings added here as review progresses}

Step 3: Review Changed Code

For EACH checklist item:

1. Scope feedback to diff lines only - Only flag issues in the changed code
2. Use file context - Read full file content to understand surrounding code
3. Apply relevant checks - Use domain-appropriate checklist items
4. Document findings - Record each violation found in changed code

Key principle: The diff is what gets reviewed. The rest of the file provides context to make that review accurate.

Step 4: Impact Analysis

Check if the diff might affect other parts of the codebase:

• Changed exports/interfaces - Search for usages elsewhere that may break
• Modified API signatures - Check for callers that need updating
• Altered shared utilities - Look for consumers that may be affected
• Config/schema changes - Find code that depends on old structure

Report any unaccounted-for impacts as findings with severity based on risk.

Step 5: Document Each Finding

For each issue found, add an entry:

### [{CATEGORY}] {Item Name}

**Status**: FAIL
**Severity**: Critical | High | Medium | Low
**Scope**: Changed code | Impact analysis

#### Violation

- **File**: `path/to/file.ext`
- **Line(s)**: 42-48 (from diff)
- **Code**:

// problematic code snippet from diff

- **Issue**: {explanation of what's wrong}
- **Recommendation**: {how to fix it}

Step 6: Finalize the Report

After completing all checks:

1. Update the summary table with final counts
2. Add an executive summary:

- Total issues found - Critical issues requiring immediate attention - Impact analysis results - Recommended priority order for fixes

1. Update status to "Complete"
2. Inform the user of the report location

Generic Review Categories

These checks apply to ALL changed code regardless of domain.

Category: Security Fundamentals

Hardcoded Secrets

Check diff for:

• API keys, passwords, secrets in changed code
• Patterns: api_key, apiKey, password, secret, token, credential with literal values

Pass criteria: No hardcoded secrets in diff (should use environment variables) Severity: Critical

Eval and Dynamic Code Execution

Check diff for:

• JavaScript/TypeScript: eval(, new Function(, setTimeout(", setInterval("
• Python: eval(, exec(, compile(

Pass criteria: No dynamic code execution in changed lines Severity: Critical

Command Injection

Check diff for:

• Python: subprocess with shell=True, os.system(
• Go: exec.Command( with unsanitized input

Pass criteria: No unvalidated user input in shell commands Severity: Critical

Category: Code Quality

Console/Print Statements

Check diff for:

• JavaScript/TypeScript: console.log, console.debug, console.info
• Python: print( statements

Pass criteria: No debug statements in production code changes Severity: Low

TODO/FIXME Comments

Check diff for:

• TODO:, FIXME:, HACK:, XXX: comments

Pass criteria: New TODOs should be tracked in issues Severity: Low

Empty Catch/Except Blocks

Check diff for:

• JavaScript/TypeScript: catch {} or catch(e) {}
• Python: except: pass or empty except blocks

Pass criteria: All error handlers log or rethrow Severity: High

Category: LLM Code Smells

Placeholder Implementations

Check diff for:

• TODO, PLACEHOLDER, IMPLEMENT, NotImplemented
• Functions that just return None, return [], return {}

Pass criteria: No placeholder implementations in production code Severity: High

Overly Generic Abstractions

Check diff for:

• New classes/functions with names like GenericHandler, BaseManager, AbstractFactory
• Abstractions without clear reuse justification

Pass criteria: Abstractions are justified by actual reuse Severity: Low

Category: Impact Analysis

Breaking Changes

Check if diff modifies:

• Exported functions/classes - search for imports elsewhere
• API endpoints - search for callers
• Shared types/interfaces - search for usages
• Config schemas - search for consumers

Pass criteria: All impacted code identified and accounted for Severity: High (if unaccounted impacts found)

Category: Simplification

Duplicate Logic

Check diff for:

• Repeated code patterns (not just syntactic similarity)
• Copy-pasted code with minor variations
• Similar validation, transformation, or formatting logic

Pass criteria: No obvious duplication in changed code Severity: Medium Suggestion: Extract shared logic into reusable functions

Unnecessary Complexity

Check diff for:

• Deeply nested conditionals (more than 3 levels)
• Functions doing multiple unrelated things
• Overly complex control flow

Pass criteria: Code is reasonably flat and focused Severity: Medium Suggestion: Use early returns, extract helper functions

Verbose Patterns

Check diff for:

• Patterns that have simpler alternatives in the language
• Redundant null checks or type assertions
• Unnecessary intermediate variables

Pass criteria: Code uses idiomatic patterns Severity: Low Suggestion: Simplify using language built-ins

Domain-Specific Review Items

Based on detected domains, read and apply the appropriate checklists:

• Frontend detected (designer/): Read frontend.md and apply those checks to changed code
• Backend detected (server/, rag/, runtimes/): Read backend.md and apply those checks to changed code

Final Summary Template

## Executive Summary

**Review completed**: {timestamp}
**Total findings**: {count}

### Critical Issues (Must Fix)
1. {issue 1}
2. {issue 2}

### Impact Analysis Results
- {summary of any breaking changes or unaccounted impacts}

### High Priority (Should Fix)
1. {issue 1}
2. {issue 2}

### Recommendations
{Overall recommendations based on the changes reviewed}

Notes for the Agent

1. Scope to diff: Only flag issues in the changed lines. Don't review unchanged code.
2. Use context: Read full files to understand the changes, but feedback targets the diff only.
3. Check impacts: When changes touch exports, APIs, or shared code, search for affected consumers.
4. Be specific: Include file paths, line numbers (from diff), and code snippets for every finding.
5. Prioritize: Flag critical security issues immediately.
6. Provide solutions: Each finding should include a recommendation for how to fix it.
7. Update incrementally: Update the review document after each category, not at the end.