shaun0927/codex-superskills/code-review

Code Review Skill

Conduct a thorough code review for quality, security, and maintainability with severity-rated feedback.

When to Use

This skill activates when:

• User requests "review this code", "code review"
• Before merging a pull request
• After implementing a major feature
• User wants quality assessment

What It Does

Delegates to the code-reviewer agent (HIGH tier model) for deep analysis:

1. Identify Changes

• Run git diff to find changed files
• Determine scope of review (specific files or entire PR)

1. Review Categories

• Security - Hardcoded secrets, injection risks, XSS, CSRF
• Code Quality - Function size, complexity, nesting depth
• Performance - Algorithm efficiency, N+1 queries, caching
• Best Practices - Naming, documentation, error handling
• Maintainability - Duplication, coupling, testability

1. Severity Rating

• CRITICAL - Security vulnerability (must fix before merge)
• HIGH - Bug or major code smell (should fix before merge)
• MEDIUM - Minor issue (fix when possible)
• LOW - Style/suggestion (consider fixing)

1. Specific Recommendations

• File:line locations for each issue
• Concrete fix suggestions
• Code examples where applicable

Agent Delegation

delegate(
  agent="code-reviewer",
  model="high-reasoning",
  task="""CODE REVIEW TASK
Review code changes for quality, security, and maintainability.
Scope: [git diff or specific files]
Review Checklist:
- Security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10)
- Code quality (complexity, duplication)
- Performance issues (N+1, inefficient algorithms)
- Best practices (naming, documentation, error handling)
- Maintainability (coupling, testability)
Output: Code review report with:
- Files reviewed count
- Issues by severity (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
- Specific file:line locations
- Fix recommendations
- Approval recommendation (APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / COMMENT)"""
)

External Model Consultation (Preferred)

The code-reviewer agent SHOULD consult Codex for cross-validation.

Protocol

1. Form your OWN review FIRST - Complete the review independently
2. Consult for validation - Cross-check findings with Codex
3. Critically evaluate - Never blindly adopt external findings
4. Graceful fallback - Never block if tools unavailable

When to Consult

• Security-sensitive code changes
• Complex architectural patterns
• Unfamiliar codebases or languages
• High-stakes production code

When to Skip

• Simple refactoring
• Well-understood patterns
• Time-critical reviews
• Small, isolated changes

Tool Usage

Before first MCP tool use, call ToolSearch("mcp") to discover deferred MCP tools. Use mcp__x__ask_codex with agent_role: "code-reviewer". If ToolSearch finds no MCP tools, fall back to the local code-reviewer Codex agent flow.

Note: Codex calls can take up to 1 hour. Consider the review timeline before consulting.

Output Format

CODE REVIEW REPORT
==================
 
Files Reviewed: 8
Total Issues: 15
 
CRITICAL (0)
-----------
(none)
 
HIGH (3)
--------
1. src/api/auth.ts:42
   Issue: User input not sanitized before SQL query
   Risk: SQL injection vulnerability
   Fix: Use parameterized queries or ORM
 
2. src/components/UserProfile.tsx:89
   Issue: Password displayed in plain text in logs
   Risk: Credential exposure
   Fix: Remove password from log statements
 
3. src/utils/validation.ts:15
   Issue: Email regex allows invalid formats
   Risk: Accepts malformed emails
   Fix: Use proven email validation library
 
MEDIUM (7)
----------
...
 
LOW (5)
-------
...
 
RECOMMENDATION: REQUEST CHANGES
 
Critical security issues must be addressed before merge.

Review Checklist

The code-reviewer agent checks:

Security

• [ ] No hardcoded secrets (API keys, passwords, tokens)
• [ ] All user inputs sanitized
• [ ] SQL/NoSQL injection prevention
• [ ] XSS prevention (escaped outputs)
• [ ] CSRF protection on state-changing operations
• [ ] Authentication/authorization properly enforced

Code Quality

• [ ] Functions < 50 lines (guideline)
• [ ] Cyclomatic complexity < 10
• [ ] No deeply nested code (> 4 levels)
• [ ] No duplicate logic (DRY principle)
• [ ] Clear, descriptive naming

Performance

• [ ] No N+1 query patterns
• [ ] Appropriate caching where applicable
• [ ] Efficient algorithms (avoid O(n²) when O(n) possible)
• [ ] No unnecessary re-renders (React/Vue)

Best Practices

• [ ] Error handling present and appropriate
• [ ] Logging at appropriate levels
• [ ] Documentation for public APIs
• [ ] Tests for critical paths
• [ ] No commented-out code

Approval Criteria

APPROVE - No CRITICAL or HIGH issues, minor improvements only REQUEST CHANGES - CRITICAL or HIGH issues present COMMENT - Only LOW/MEDIUM issues, no blocking concerns

Use with Other Skills

With Pipeline:

pipeline review "implement user authentication"

Includes code review as part of implementation workflow.

With Ralph:

ralph code-review then fix all issues

Review code, get feedback, fix until approved.

With Ultrawork:

ultrawork review all files in src/

Parallel code review across multiple files.

Best Practices

• Review early - Catch issues before they compound
• Review often - Small, frequent reviews better than huge ones
• Address CRITICAL/HIGH first - Fix security and bugs immediately
• Consider context - Some "issues" may be intentional trade-offs
• Learn from reviews - Use feedback to improve coding practices