Code Review Before Commit

Review code quality, security, and maintainability before committing changes to Linus Dashboard.

Your Role

Senior code reviewer ensuring quality, security, and maintainability.

Context Required:

1. •.aidriven/memorybank.md
2. •.aidriven/rules/ - All rule files
3. •Changed files (git diff)

Review Checklist

1. Code Quality

Readability:

• • Functions < 50 lines
• • Variables have descriptive names
• • Complex logic has comments explaining WHY
• • Code is self-documenting

Structure:

• • Single responsibility per function/class
• • No code duplication
• • Logical organization
• • Consistent style

Type Safety:

• • All functions have type hints
• • No Any without justification
• • Return types specified
• • Proper use of Optional/Union

2. Documentation

• • Module docstrings present
• • Public functions/classes documented
• • Docstrings follow Google style
• • Complex algorithms explained
• • No outdated comments

3. Error Handling

• • Specific exceptions (no bare except)
• • Errors logged with context
• • User-friendly error messages
• • Resources cleaned up (try/finally)
• • No silent failures

4. Async/Await

• • No blocking I/O in async functions
• • All async functions awaited
• • asyncio.gather() for parallel ops
• • Proper timeout handling
• • CancelledError handled

5. Home Assistant Patterns

• • Integration lifecycle correct (setup/unload)
• • Data stored in hass.data[DOMAIN][entry_id]
• • Cleanup registered with entry.async_on_unload()
• • Entities have unique_id
• • Services registered properly
• • Coordinator pattern used correctly

6. Security

• • No hardcoded credentials
• • User input validated
• • SQL injection prevented
• • XSS vulnerabilities addressed
• • API keys stored securely
• • No sensitive data in logs

7. Performance

• • No N+1 queries
• • Expensive operations cached
• • Database queries optimized
• • No memory leaks
• • Async for I/O operations

8. Testing

• • Changes manually tested
• • Edge cases considered
• • Error paths tested
• • No regressions

Review Process

Step 1: Get Changed Files

# See what changed
git status

# View diff
git diff

# Check specific files
git diff path/to/file.py

Step 2: Analyze Changes

For each changed file:

1. •Read the diff
2. •Understand the purpose
3. •Check against standards
4. •Look for issues
5. •Note improvements

Step 3: Check Build and Tests

# TypeScript
npm run build
npm run type-check
npm run lint:check

# Run smoke tests
npm run test:smoke

Step 4: Provide Feedback

Format:

File: path/to/file.py

✅ Good:
- Clear function names
- Proper type hints
- Good error handling

⚠️ Issues:
1. Line 42: Missing docstring
2. Line 78: Blocking I/O in async function
3. Line 103: Exception too broad

💡 Suggestions:
- Consider caching this result
- Extract this logic to separate function

Common Issues to Watch For

Python Issues

Async/Await:

# ❌ Bad - blocking I/O
async def fetch_data():
    response = requests.get(url)  # Blocks event loop

# ✅ Good - async I/O
async def fetch_data():
    async with aiohttp.ClientSession() as session:
        async with session.get(url) as response:
            return await response.json()

Error Handling:

# ❌ Bad - bare except
try:
    do_something()
except:
    pass

# ✅ Good - specific exception
try:
    do_something()
except ValueError as err:
    _LOGGER.error("Invalid value: %s", err)
    raise

Type Hints:

# ❌ Bad - no types
def process_data(data):
    return data.get("value")

# ✅ Good - with types
def process_data(data: dict[str, Any]) -> str | None:
    """Process data and return value."""
    return data.get("value")

TypeScript Issues

Type Safety:

// ❌ Bad - any type
function process(data: any): any {
    return data.value;
}

// ✅ Good - proper types
function process(data: DataType): string | undefined {
    return data.value;
}

Null Safety:

// ❌ Bad - no null check
const value = entity.state.toUpperCase();

// ✅ Good - null check
const value = entity.state?.toUpperCase() ?? "unknown";

Security Review Checklist

• • No secrets in code
• • API keys from config
• • User input sanitized
• • SQL queries parameterized
• • HTML output escaped
• • HTTPS for external calls
• • Authentication checked
• • Authorization verified

Performance Review Checklist

• • No synchronous I/O in async code
• • Database queries optimized
• • Caching used appropriately
• • No unnecessary API calls
• • Efficient algorithms
• • Memory usage reasonable

Final Review

Before approving:

Code Quality:

• •Follows project standards
• •Well-documented
• •Properly typed
• •Good error handling

Functionality:

• •Implements requirements
• •No obvious bugs
• •Edge cases handled
• •Tested manually

Maintainability:

• •Easy to understand
• •Well-structured
• •Follows patterns
• •Documented properly

Security:

• •No vulnerabilities
• •Input validated
• •Secrets protected

Review Outcome

APPROVE - Code meets all standards REQUEST CHANGES - Issues must be fixed COMMENT - Suggestions for improvement

Quick Commands

# Check what changed
git diff

# Check specific file
git diff path/to/file

# See commit history
git log --oneline -10

# Run quality checks
npm run lint:check
npm run type-check
npm run build

# Run tests
npm run test:smoke