Structured code review criteria for pre-implementation plan review (Critic) and post-implementation security/quality review. Covers security, performance, maintainability, and correctness with severity ratings.
Installation
Details
Usage
After installing, this skill will be available to your AI coding assistant.
Verify installation:
skills listSkill Instructions
name: code-review-checklist description: Structured code review criteria for pre-implementation plan review (Critic) and post-implementation security/quality review. Covers security, performance, maintainability, and correctness with severity ratings. license: MIT metadata: author: groupzer0 version: "1.0"
Code Review Checklist
Systematic review criteria for evaluating code and plans. Use this skill when:
- Critic reviews plans before implementation
- Security agent conducts code audits
- Architect reviews architectural compliance
- UAT validates implementation quality
Review Context
This skill supports two review phases:
| Phase | Agent | Focus | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Implementation | Critic | Plan quality, clarity, completeness | planning/*.md |
| Post-Implementation | Security, Architect | Code quality, security, architecture | Source code |
Pre-Implementation Review (Critic)
Value Statement Assessment (MUST START HERE)
| Check | Question | Finding Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Presence | Does plan have clear value statement in user story format? | CRITICAL if missing |
| Clarity | Is "So that" outcome measurable or verifiable? | HIGH if vague |
| Alignment | Does value support Master Product Objective? | CRITICAL if drift |
| Directness | Is value delivered directly, not deferred? | HIGH if deferred |
Plan Completeness
| Check | Question | Finding Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Are boundaries clearly defined? | MEDIUM |
| Deliverables | Are all deliverables listed with acceptance criteria? | HIGH |
| Dependencies | Are dependencies identified and sequenced? | MEDIUM |
| Risks | Are risks documented with mitigations? | LOW |
| Version | Is semver bump specified with rationale? | MEDIUM |
Constraint Compliance
| Check | Question | Finding Severity |
|---|---|---|
| No Code | Does plan avoid prescriptive code? | LOW |
| No How | Does plan focus on WHAT/WHY, not HOW? | LOW |
| Architecture | Does plan respect architectural constraints? | HIGH |
Post-Implementation Review (Security/Architect)
Security Checklist
| Category | Check | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Input Validation | All user input validated server-side? | CRITICAL |
| Authentication | Auth checks on all protected routes? | CRITICAL |
| Authorization | RBAC/ownership verified before access? | CRITICAL |
| Secrets | No hardcoded credentials or keys? | CRITICAL |
| SQL/Injection | Parameterized queries used? | CRITICAL |
| XSS | Output encoding applied? | HIGH |
| CSRF | Tokens on state-changing requests? | HIGH |
| Logging | Security events logged without sensitive data? | MEDIUM |
| Dependencies | No known CVEs in dependencies? | Varies |
Performance Checklist
| Category | Check | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| N+1 Queries | Batch fetches instead of loops? | HIGH |
| Pagination | Large datasets paginated? | HIGH |
| Caching | Appropriate caching strategy? | MEDIUM |
| Async | Long operations non-blocking? | MEDIUM |
| Resource Limits | Bounded allocations? | HIGH |
Maintainability Checklist
| Category | Check | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Naming | Clear, descriptive names? | LOW |
| Complexity | Cyclomatic complexity < 10? | MEDIUM |
| Coupling | Low coupling between modules? | MEDIUM |
| Documentation | Public APIs documented? | LOW |
| Error Handling | Errors handled, not swallowed? | HIGH |
| Tests | Adequate coverage for changes? | HIGH |
Architectural Compliance
| Category | Check | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Boundaries | Module boundaries respected? | HIGH |
| Patterns | Established patterns followed? | MEDIUM |
| Dependencies | Dependency direction correct? | HIGH |
| Single Responsibility | Classes/modules focused? | MEDIUM |
Severity Definitions
| Severity | Response | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Block until fixed | Auth bypass, SQL injection, no value statement |
| HIGH | Fix before merge | Missing validation, N+1 queries, unclear scope |
| MEDIUM | Fix in current cycle | Code smells, missing docs, minor coupling |
| LOW | Track for later | Style issues, optimization opportunities |
Finding Format
Document findings consistently:
### [ID]: [Brief Title]
- **Severity**: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
- **Status**: OPEN / ADDRESSED / RESOLVED / DEFERRED
- **Location**: [file:line or plan section]
- **Description**: [What is the issue?]
- **Impact**: [Why does this matter?]
- **Recommendation**: [How to fix?]
Agent-Specific Guidance
For Critic Agent
- Focus on plan quality, not implementation details
- Value statement assessment is mandatory first step
- Reference Planner constraints when reviewing
- Create critique in
agent-output/critiques/
For Security Agent
- Focus on OWASP Top 10 and injection patterns
- Reference
security-patternsskill for detection - Create audit in
agent-output/security/ - Use CVSS-aligned severity
For Architect Agent
- Focus on system-level design compliance
- Reference
architecture-patternsskill - Update
system-architecture.mdwhen issues found - Include ADR updates if decisions affected
More by groupzer0
View allUnified document lifecycle management. Defines terminal statuses, unified numbering via .next-id, close procedures, and orphan detection. Load at session start.
Version management, release verification, and deployment procedures for software releases. Includes semver guidance, version consistency checks, and platform-specific constraints.
TDD workflow and test strategy patterns including test pyramid, coverage strategies, mocking approaches, and anti-patterns. Load when writing tests, designing test strategies, or reviewing test coverage.
Core software engineering principles (SOLID, DRY, YAGNI, KISS) with detection patterns and refactoring guidance. Load when reviewing code quality, planning architecture, or identifying technical debt.