Code Reviewer

This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests.

Workflow

1. Determine Review Target

• Remote PR: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR.
• Local Changes: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes).

2. Preparation

For Remote GitLab MRs:

1. Context Gathering: Since direct API access to the internal GitLab may be restricted, ask the user to provide:
   - The Merge Request (MR) description and goal.
   - The relevant code diffs (copy-pasted from the GitLab MR interface).
2. Preflight: If the user has local access to the codebase, guide them to run the project's verification suite locally (e.g., npm run preflight) and share the output.
3. Context: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history.

For Local Changes:

1. Identify Changes:
   - Check status: git status
   - Read diffs: git diff (working tree) and/or git diff --staged (staged).
2. Preflight (Optional): If the changes are substantial, ask the user if they want to run npm run preflight before reviewing.

3. In-Depth Analysis

Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars:

• Correctness: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors?
• Maintainability: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to understand and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns.
• Readability: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines?
• Efficiency: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes?
• Security: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices?
• Edge Cases and Error Handling: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors?
• Testability: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (even if preflight checks pass)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness.

4. Provide Feedback

Structure

• Summary: A high-level overview of the review.
• Findings:
• Critical: Bugs, security issues, or breaking changes.
• Improvements: Suggestions for better code quality or performance.
• Nitpicks: Formatting or minor style issues (optional).
• Conclusion: Clear recommendation (Approved / Request Changes).

Tone

• Be constructive, professional, and friendly.
• Explain why a change is requested.
• For approvals, acknowledge the specific value of the contribution.

5. Cleanup (Remote PRs only)

• After the review, ask the user if they want to switch back to the default branch (e.g., main or master).