Review Changes

Systematic workflow for reviewing code changes against established standards.

When to Use

• •Reviewing pull requests
• •Evaluating commits or diffs
• •Pre-merge code validation
• •Refactoring assessment
• •Architecture review

Review Process

1. Understand the Change

Read the changes completely before commenting:

• •What problem does this solve?
• •What is the scope of impact?
• •Are tests included?

2. Type Safety Review

Check for:

• •No any types (unless absolutely necessary with clear justification)
• •Minimal use of as assertions
• •Proper type inference usage
• •e2e type-safety from API to UI

3. Code Organization

Verify:

• •Named exports (no default exports unless required)
• •No index files used only for re-exports
• •Code proximity to usage (not prematurely abstracted)
• •Single-file folders are flattened
• •Proper file naming (kebab-case)

4. React-Specific Review

Check for:

• •No constants/functions declared inside components
• •Data fetching uses React Query (not useEffect)
• •Minimal useEffect usage
• •Proper use of use, useTransition, startTransition
• •Cache tags use enums (no magic strings)
• •Suspense boundaries with error boundaries

5. Naming & Clarity

Evaluate:

• •Descriptive names (no abbreviations)
• •Specific over vague (retryAfterMs vs timeout)
• •No redundant terms (users vs userList)
• •Proper nesting for context (config.public.ENV_NAME)
• •No magic strings/numbers

6. Control Flow

Verify:

• •Early returns (no if-else chains)
• •Flat code (minimal indentation)
• •Hash-lists instead of switch statements
• •Proper async/await usage

7. Testing

Check for:

• •Tests exist for new functionality
• •Tests for bug fixes
• •Behavior testing (not implementation)
• •No "should" in test names (use 3rd person verbs)
• •Good describe clause organization

8. Best Practices

Confirm:

• •No premature optimization
• •No over-engineering (KISS, YAGNI)
• •No useless abstractions
• •Comments converted to code
• •Error monitoring/observability considered
• •Accessibility (a11y) addressed
• •Security (OWASP) followed

9. Git Hygiene

Check:

• •Commit messages don't include "Claude Code"
• •Clear, descriptive commit messages
• •Logical commit organization

Review Output Format

Structure feedback as:

Required Changes (Blocking)

Critical issues that must be fixed:

• •Type safety violations
• •Security issues
• •Breaking changes without migration path

Suggested Improvements (Non-blocking)

Recommendations for better code:

• •Naming improvements
• •Structural optimizations
• •Readability enhancements

Positive Feedback

Highlight good practices:

• •Excellent type safety
• •Clear naming
• •Good test coverage

Example Review Comments

Good:

❌ Line 45: Using `any` type removes type safety.
Suggestion: Define proper interface for user data.

💡 Line 67: Consider using early return here to reduce nesting.
Current indentation: 4 levels
Target: 2 levels or less

✅ Excellent use of React Query with proper cache invalidation!

Bad:

This code is bad.

Fix the types.

Priority Levels

1. •Critical - Blocks merge: security, type-safety violations, breaking changes
2. •High - Should fix before merge: maintainability issues, significant readability problems
3. •Medium - Nice to have: naming improvements, minor refactoring
4. •Low - Optional: style preferences, subjective improvements

Review Checklist

Quick validation before approval:

• • No any types without justification
• • Named exports used
• • Early returns implemented
• • No magic strings/numbers
• • Tests included for new features/fixes
• • React best practices followed
• • Proper error handling
• • Clear naming conventions
• • No over-engineering
• • Git commits are clean