Context

Performs a comprehensive code review focusing on correctness, security, performance, and standards compliance. Uses the project's standards and learnings as the review baseline.

Inputs

$ARGUMENTS - File paths, PR number, or "staged" for staged changes

Steps

1. Gather Context

•Read CLAUDE.md to understand project critical rules
•Identify the stack being reviewed (.cs = dotnet, .ts/.tsx = typescript, .py = python, .tf = terraform)
•Read the relevant standards/*.md file for the stack
•Read the relevant learnings/*.md file for known patterns and pitfalls
•Identify the files to review from $ARGUMENTS

2. Analyze Each File

For each file, check against these dimensions:

Correctness:

•Logic errors, edge cases, null handling
•Result pattern compliance (IsError check before Value access)
•Error types registered in error mapping

Security (reference standards/security.md):

•No hardcoded secrets or credentials
•Input validation at system boundaries
•Authentication/authorization on endpoints
•No data exposure in logs or responses
•SQL injection, XSS, CSRF protection

Performance:

•N+1 query patterns
•Multiple enumeration of IEnumerable
•Missing cancellation token propagation
•Unnecessary allocations

Standards Compliance:

•Naming conventions match the stack standard
•Code structure follows project patterns
•Explicit types (no ambiguous var in .NET)
•Async suffix on async methods
•Guard clauses / early returns (not deep nesting)

Testing:

•Tests exist for new/changed code
•Test naming follows MethodName_Scenario_ExpectedResult
•Assertions use EnterMultipleScope() for grouped checks
•Dynamic dates (not hardcoded)

Maintainability:

•Single responsibility
•Comments explain "why" not "what"
•No dead code
•No TODO without issue reference

3. Generate Review Report

Output in this format:

code

## Code Review: [Files/PR]

### Summary
[Brief assessment: 2-3 sentences]

**Verdict:** APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES | REJECT

### Critical Issues (must fix)
- [ ] **[file:line]** [Description] - [Fix suggestion]

### High Priority
- [ ] **[file:line]** [Description]

### Suggestions (nice to have)
- [ ] **[file:line]** [Description]

### Positive Observations
- [What was done well]

Verification

•All critical rules from CLAUDE.md were checked
•No false positives from Result pattern checks
•Review references specific lines and files
•Fix suggestions are actionable