Code Review Checklist

---

name: code-review-checklist description: 代码审查清单 - A comprehensive code review checklist and guidance tool. Use when user asks about 代码审查、代码检查、PR review、代码质量, or wants to conduct or prepare for a code review. Provides systematic checklist items and best practices.

---

Code Review Checklist (代码审查清单)

Overview

This skill provides a systematic approach to code reviews. It offers comprehensive checklist items across multiple dimensions of code quality, helps reviewers focus on high-impact areas, and guides developers in preparing code for review. Designed to make code reviews more efficient and thorough.

When to Use This Skill

Preparing code for pull request review

Conducting a code review as a reviewer

Self-reviewing own code before submission

Establishing code review standards for a team

Training new developers on review best practices

Auditing code quality in a codebase

What This Skill Provides

1. Predefined Checklists

Comprehensive checklist items organized by category:

Code correctness and logic

Code style and readability

Performance and efficiency

Security considerations

Error handling

Testing coverage

Documentation

Architecture and design patterns

2. Review Guidance

What to look for in each category

Red flags and common issues

Best practices specific to language/framework

Questions to ask the author

3. Review Workflow

Systematic approach to reviewing

Priority ordering of checks

Time allocation guidance

Documentation requirements

Checklist Categories

1. Correctness & Logic

[ ] Code produces expected output

[ ] Edge cases are handled

[ ] No off-by-one errors

[ ] Logic is sound and complete

[ ] No infinite loops or recursion issues

[ ] Proper use of data structures

2. Code Style & Readability

[ ] Follows project coding standards

[ ] Naming is clear and descriptive

[ ] Functions are appropriately sized

[ ] Code is not duplicated (DRY principle)

[ ] Complex logic has comments

[ ] Formatting is consistent

3. Performance & Efficiency

[ ] No unnecessary loops or iterations

[ ] Proper use of caching when applicable

[ ] Database queries are optimized

[ ] No memory leaks

[ ] Appropriate algorithmic complexity

[ ] Resources are properly released

4. Security

[ ] Input validation on all user inputs

[ ] No SQL injection vulnerabilities

[ ] No XSS vulnerabilities

[ ] Secrets not hardcoded

[ ] Proper authentication/authorization

[ ] Sensitive data properly protected

[ ] No security misconfigurations

5. Error Handling

[ ] Errors are caught and handled appropriately

[ ] Error messages are user-friendly

[ ] No empty catch blocks

[ ] Logging is appropriate

[ ] Graceful degradation where needed

[ ] No exposing internal error details

6. Testing

[ ] Unit tests exist for new code

[ ] Tests cover happy path and edge cases

[ ] Tests are maintainable

[ ] Mock usage is appropriate

[ ] Test coverage meets requirements

[ ] No flaky tests introduced

7. Documentation

[ ] Public APIs are documented

[ ] Complex logic has comments

[ ] README updated if needed

[ ] API changes are documented

[ ] Breaking changes are noted

8. Architecture & Design

[ ] Follows project architecture patterns

[ ] Single Responsibility Principle followed

[ ] Dependencies are properly injected

[ ] Coupling is minimized

[ ] Changes are localized appropriately

[ ] No tech debt introduced unnecessarily

Language-Specific Considerations

JavaScript/TypeScript

Proper async/await usage

TypeScript types are correct

No 'any' type abuse

ESLint rules followed

Python

PEP 8 compliance

Type hints where appropriate

Docstrings for public functions

No deprecated imports

Java

Null safety considerations

Resource management (try-with-resources)

Stream API usage

Concurrent access considerations

Go

Error handling conventions

Goroutine leak prevention

Context usage

Naming conventions

Review Workflow

Step 1: Context (2-3 min)

Read PR description and motivation

Understand what changed and why

Check related issues or docs

Step 2: Overview (3-5 min)

Scan changed files

Identify high-risk areas

Note files needing deep review

Step 3: Detailed Review (15-30 min)

Follow checklist by priority

Comment on issues found

Ask clarifying questions

Suggest improvements

Step 4: Summary (3-5 min)

Summarize findings

Categorize issues (Blocking/Suggestion/Question)

Approve or request changes

Usage Examples

As a Reviewer

"用代码审查清单检查这个PR"
"帮我审查这个函数的逻辑"
"检查这段代码有没有安全问题"
"看看这个文件有哪些可以改进的地方"

As a Developer

"帮我准备代码审查"
"自审查这份代码,有什么遗漏?"
"检查这段代码的测试覆盖"
"这个代码符合项目规范吗?"

For Team Standards

"生成一个代码审查检查清单"
"我们团队的代码审查标准是什么?"
"前端代码审查有什么特殊要求?"

Output Format

For each review, output:

## Code Review: [PR/Change Title]
Summary
Files changed: X
Lines added/removed: +X/-X
Risk level: [Low/Medium/High]
Findings
#### 🔴 Blocking Issues
[Issue description] - [File:Line] - [Suggestion]
#### 🟡 Suggestions
[Suggestion] - [File:Line]
#### 🟢 Good Practices Noted
[Positive observation]
Checklist Status
[x] Correctness
[x] Style
[ ] Security (needs work)
[x] Performance
Recommendation
[Approve / Request Changes / Discuss]
Action Items
[ ] Item 1
[ ] Item 2

Integration with Development Workflow

This skill integrates with:

github — For reviewing PRs directly

coding-agent — For automated code quality checks

opencli — For running linters and formatters

Limitations

Cannot execute code to verify correctness

Cannot know full system context

Best practices may vary by project

Language-specific items may be incomplete for niche languages

Acceptance Criteria

1. ✓ Provides comprehensive checklist coverage 2. ✓ Can customize for different languages/frameworks 3. ✓ Identifies common issues efficiently 4. ✓ Helps categorize issue severity 5. ✓ Provides actionable feedback 6. ✓ Saves time in review process 7. ✓ Helps developers learn and improve