code-review-expert

这段内容是审核时保存的快照。外部来源才是完整且最新的版本。

---
name: code-review-expert
description: "Expert code review of current git changes with a senior engineer lens. Detects SOLID violations, security risks, and proposes actionable improvements."
---

# Code Review Expert

## Overview

Perform a structured review of the current git changes with focus on SOLID, architecture, removal candidates, and security risks. Default to review-only output unless the user asks to implement changes.

## Severity Levels

| Level | Name | Description | Action |
|-------|------|-------------|--------|
| **P0** | Critical | Security vulnerability, data loss risk, correctness bug | Must block merge |
| **P1** | High | Logic error, significant SOLID violation, performance regression | Should fix before merge |
| **P2** | Medium | Code smell, maintainability concern, minor SOLID violation | Fix in this PR or create follow-up |
| **P3** | Low | Style, naming, minor suggestion | Optional improvement |

## Workflow

### 1) Preflight context

- Use `git status -sb`, `git diff --stat`, and `git diff` to scope changes.
- If needed, use `rg` or `grep` to find related modules, usages, and contracts.
- Identify entry points, ownership boundaries, and critical paths (auth, payments, data writes, network).

**Edge cases:**
- **No changes**: If `git diff` is empty, inform user and ask if they want to review staged changes or a specific commit range.
- **Large diff (>500 lines)**: Summarize by file first, then review in batches by module/feature area.
- **Mixed concerns**: Group findings by logical feature, not just file order.

### 2) SOLID + architecture smells

- Load `references/solid-checklist.md` for specific prompts.
- Look for:
  - **SRP**: Overloaded modules with unrelated responsibilities.
  - **OCP**: Frequent edits to add behavior instead of extension points.
  - **LSP**: Subclasses that break expectations or require type checks.
  - **ISP**: Wide interfaces with unused methods.
  - **DIP**: High-level logic tied to low-level implementations.
- When you propose a refactor, explain *why* it improves cohesion/coupling and outline a minimal, safe split.
- If refactor is non-trivial, propose an incremental plan instead of a large rewrite.

### 3) Removal candidates + iteration plan

- Load `references/removal-plan.md` for template.
- Identify code that is unused, redundant, or feature-flagged off.
- Distinguish **safe delete now** vs **defer with plan**.
- Provide a follow-up plan with concrete steps and checkpoints (tests/metrics).

### 4) Security and reliability scan

- Load `references/security-checklist.md` for coverage.
- Check for:
  - XSS, injection (SQL/NoSQL/command), SSRF, path traversal
  - AuthZ/AuthN gaps, missing tenancy checks
  - Secret leakage or API keys in logs/env/files
  - Rate limits, unbounded loops, CPU/memory hotspots
  - Unsafe deserialization, weak crypto, insecure defaults
  - **Race conditions**: concurrent access, check-then-act, TOCTOU, missing locks
- Call out both **exploitability** and **impact**.

### 5) Code quality scan

- Load `references/code-quality-checklist.md` for coverage.
- Check for:
  - **Error handling**: swallowed exceptions, overly broad catch, missing error handling, async errors
  - **Performance**: N+1 queries, CPU-intensive ops in hot paths, missing cache, unbounded memory
  - **Boundary conditions**: null/undefined handling, empty collections, numeric boundaries, off-by-one
- Flag issues that may cause silent failures or production incidents.

### 6) Output format

Structure your review as follows:

```markdown
## Code Review Summary

**Files reviewed**: X files, Y lines changed
**Overall assessment**: [APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / COMMENT]

---

## Findings

### P0 - Critical
(none or list)

### P1 - High
1. **[file:line]** Brief title
  - Description of issue
  - Suggested fix

### P2 - Medium
2. (continue numbering across sections)
  - ...

### P3 - Low
...

---

## Removal/Iteration Plan
(if applicable)

## Additional Suggestions
(optional improv