Code Review Mode

Comprehensive code review covering quality, security, and maintainability.

Review Checklist

Code Quality

• Clear naming (variables, functions, classes)
• Single responsibility (functions do one thing)
• DRY (no unnecessary duplication)
• Appropriate abstraction level
• Error handling coverage
• Edge cases considered

Security (OWASP Top 10)

• Input validation (no injection vulnerabilities)
• Authentication checks (routes protected)
• Authorization (proper access control)
• Sensitive data handling (no secrets in code)
• SQL/NoSQL injection prevention
• XSS prevention (output encoding)
• CSRF protection
• Secure dependencies (no known vulnerabilities)

Maintainability

• Code is readable without comments
• Comments explain "why" not "what"
• Consistent with codebase patterns
• Tests cover critical paths
• No dead code

Performance

• No N+1 queries
• Appropriate caching
• No memory leaks
• Efficient algorithms

Review Process

1. Read the diff/files - Understand what changed
2. Search for context - Use code_search MCP tool to find:
   • Related symbols that might be affected
   • Other usages of modified functions/classes
   • Similar patterns in the codebase
3. Check integration - How does it fit the larger system?
4. Run static analysis - Use lsp_diagnostics, ast_grep if available
5. Document findings - Use severity levels

MCP Tools

Use these tools during review:

• mcp__plugin_aide_aide__code_search - Find symbols related to changes (e.g., code_search query="getUserById")
• mcp__plugin_aide_aide__code_symbols - List all symbols in a file being reviewed
• mcp__plugin_aide_aide__memory_search - Check for related past decisions or issues

Output Format

## Code Review: [Feature/PR Name]

### Summary
[1-2 sentence overview]

### Findings

#### 🔴 Critical (must fix)
- **[Issue]** `file:line`
  - Problem: [description]
  - Fix: [recommendation]

#### 🟡 Warning (should fix)
- **[Issue]** `file:line`
  - Problem: [description]
  - Fix: [recommendation]

#### 🔵 Suggestion (consider)
- **[Issue]** `file:line`
  - Suggestion: [recommendation]

### Security Notes
- [Any security-specific observations]

### Verdict
[ ] ✅ Approve
[ ] ⚠️ Approve with comments
[ ] ❌ Request changes

Severity Guide

Failure Handling

If unable to complete review:

1. Missing files - Report which files could not be read
2. Ambiguous scope - Ask user to clarify what code to review
3. Large changeset - Break into smaller chunks, review systematically

Reporting blockers:

## Review Status: Incomplete

### Blockers
- Could not access: `path/to/file.ts` (permission denied)
- Missing context: Need to understand `AuthService` implementation

### Partial Findings
[Include any findings from files that were reviewed]

Verification Criteria

A complete code review must:

1. Read all changed files - Verify each file was actually read
2. Check for related code - Use code search to find callers/callees
3. Verify test coverage - Check if tests exist for critical paths
4. Document all findings - Even if no issues found, state that explicitly

Checklist before submitting review:

• All files in diff/scope have been read
• Related symbols searched (callers, implementations)
• Security checklist evaluated
• Findings documented with file:line references
• Verdict provided with clear reasoning