Local Code Review

Run a comprehensive, critical code review of local changes. This skill analyzes staged and unstaged changes to provide insights, identify issues, and suggest alternative approaches.

Instructions

When this skill is invoked:

•First, read the detailed agent instructions from .claude/agents/code-review/instructions.md
•Gather the current changes using git diff
•Analyze the changes following the review framework
•Provide a structured report with findings and alternatives

Usage

code

/code-review              # Review all uncommitted changes
/code-review --staged     # Review only staged changes
/code-review <commit>     # Review changes in a specific commit
/code-review <base>..<head>  # Review changes between commits

Review Process

Step 1: Gather Changes

Based on arguments:

•No args: git diff HEAD (all uncommitted changes)
•--staged: git diff --staged
•<commit>: git show <commit>
•<base>..<head>: git diff <base>..<head>

Step 2: Understand Context

For each modified file:

•Read the full file to understand surrounding context
•Identify the module/component's purpose
•Note existing patterns and conventions

Step 3: Analyze Changes

Apply the review framework from .claude/agents/code-review/instructions.md:

•Correctness analysis
•Design evaluation
•Security review
•Performance considerations
•Maintainability assessment

Step 4: Generate Alternatives

For non-trivial changes, brainstorm alternative approaches:

•Different architectural patterns
•Alternative algorithms or data structures
•Trade-off analysis for each approach

Step 5: Report

Provide a structured report with:

•Executive summary
•Critical issues (must fix)
•Concerns (should consider)
•Suggestions (nice to have)
•Alternative approaches with trade-offs
•Questions for the author

Output Format

markdown

# Code Review: [brief description of changes]

## Summary

[2-3 sentence overview of what the changes do and overall assessment]

## Critical Issues

[Issues that would cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or data loss]

## Concerns

[Design issues, edge cases, potential problems]

## Suggestions

[Improvements, style, minor issues]

## Alternative Approaches

### Alternative 1: [Name]

**Approach:** [Description]
**Trade-offs:**

- Pro: ...
- Con: ...
  **When to prefer:** [Conditions where this is better]

### Alternative 2: [Name]

...

## Questions

[Clarifying questions for the author about intent or requirements]

Severity Definitions

•CRITICAL: Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, breaking changes
•CONCERN: Design flaws, missing edge cases, unclear intent, potential issues
•SUGGESTION: Style, readability, minor optimizations, documentation