version: "1.0.0" name: aura-code-review description: Systematic code review methodology — 4 layers of analysis with severity classification and confidence thresholds. Load this before auditing any code.

Aura Code Review Methodology

Applies to: aura-reviewer

Approach: Systematic analysis across 4 layers with severity classification. Only report findings with >=80% confidence. Include file:line references for all issues.

The 4 Review Layers

Layer 1: Correctness

• Logic errors and edge cases
• Error handling completeness
• Type safety and null checks
• Algorithm correctness
• Off-by-one errors

Layer 2: Security

• No hardcoded secrets or API keys
• Input validation and sanitization
• Injection vulnerability prevention (SQL, XSS, command)
• Authentication and authorization checks
• Sensitive data not logged
• OWASP Top 10 awareness

Layer 3: Performance

• No N+1 query patterns
• Appropriate caching strategies
• No unnecessary re-renders (React/frontend)
• Lazy loading where appropriate
• Memory leak prevention
• Algorithmic complexity concerns

Layer 4: Style and Maintainability

• Adherence to project conventions
• Code duplication (DRY violations)
• Complexity management (cyclomatic complexity)
• Documentation completeness
• Test coverage gaps

Severity Classification

Confidence Threshold

Only report findings with >=80% confidence. If uncertain about an issue:

• State the uncertainty explicitly: "Potential issue (70% confidence): ..."
• Suggest investigation rather than assert a problem
• Prefer false negatives over false positives (reduce noise)

Review Process

1. Initial Scan — Identify all files in scope, understand the change
2. Deep Analysis — Apply all 4 layers systematically to each file
3. Context Evaluation — Consider surrounding code, project patterns, existing conventions
4. Philosophy Check — Also load aura-code-philosophy or aura-frontend-philosophy if applicable
5. Synthesize Findings — Group by severity, deduplicate, prioritize

Output Format

Structure your review artifact as:

1. Files Reviewed — List all files analyzed
2. Overall Assessment — APPROVE | REQUEST_CHANGES | NEEDS_DISCUSSION
3. Summary — 2-3 sentence overview
4. Critical Issues (🔴) — With file:line references
5. Major Issues (🟠) — With file:line references
6. Minor Issues (🟡) — With file:line references
7. Positive Observations (🟢) — What's done well (always include at least one)
8. Philosophy Compliance — Checklist results if applicable
9. Detailed Findings — Line-by-line feedback for each issue

Adherence Checklist

Before completing a review, verify:

• [ ] All 4 layers analyzed (Correctness, Security, Performance, Style)
• [ ] Severity assigned to each finding
• [ ] Confidence >=80% for all reported issues (or uncertainty stated)
• [ ] File names and line numbers included for all findings
• [ ] Positive observations noted
• [ ] Output follows the standard format