Program: Code Review

Input Contract

The assignment JSON contains:

{
  "path": "src/",
  "doc_type": "review",
  "review_focus": "security|performance|quality|all",
  "file_manifest": [{"name": "auth.ts", "size": 2048}, ...],
  "plain": false,
  "budget": {"max_files": 30, "max_lines_per_file": 500}
}

Analysis Phase

Read files from the manifest. Do NOT re-enumerate -- the station already ran Glob.

Priority read order:

1. Configuration files (package.json, tsconfig.json, biome.json, .eslintrc*) -- establish project conventions
2. Entry/index files (index.ts, main.ts) -- understand module structure
3. Source files ordered by size descending (larger files are more likely to contain issues)
4. Test files (for coverage gaps, test quality)

For each source file, check based on review_focus:

Focus: security

• Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, path traversal)
• Unsafe eval(), Function(), innerHTML, dangerouslySetInnerHTML
• Hardcoded secrets, API keys, credentials
• Missing input validation at system boundaries
• Insecure cryptographic usage
• Prototype pollution risks
• Unvalidated redirects
• Missing authentication/authorization checks

Focus: performance

• Unnecessary re-renders (React components without memoization where needed)
• N+1 query patterns
• Unbounded loops or recursion
• Missing pagination on data fetching
• Large synchronous operations that should be async
• Memory leaks (event listeners not cleaned up, unclosed resources)
• Inefficient data structures (array lookups where Maps/Sets would be better)
• Bundle size concerns (large imports that could be tree-shaken)

Focus: quality

• Dead code (unused exports, unreachable branches)
• Code duplication (similar logic in multiple places)
• Overly complex functions (deep nesting, long parameter lists, excessive branching)
• Missing error handling at system boundaries
• Inconsistent naming or style (relative to project conventions from config files)
• Type safety issues (any types, missing null checks, unsafe casts)
• Poor abstraction (god functions, feature envy, inappropriate coupling)
• Missing or misleading documentation on public APIs

Focus: all

• Run all three categories above
• Prioritize findings by severity across categories

Severity Classification

• Critical: Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, crashes, race conditions
• Warning: Performance issues, maintainability concerns, potential bugs
• Info: Style inconsistencies, minor improvements, suggestions

Output Template

Generate a code review report:

## Code Review Report

### Summary

| Category | Critical | Warning | Info |
|----------|----------|---------|------|
| Security | {N} | {N} | {N} |
| Performance | {N} | {N} | {N} |
| Quality | {N} | {N} | {N} |
| **Total** | **{N}** | **{N}** | **{N}** |

### Critical Issues

#### {issue_title}

**File**: `{file_path}:{line_number}`
**Category**: {security|performance|quality}

{description of the issue}

```{language}
// Current code
{problematic code snippet}

Suggested fix:

{suggested replacement}

Warnings

{issue_title}

File: {file_path}:{line_number} Category: {security|performance|quality}

{description}

Info

{issue_title}

File: {file_path}:{line_number} Category: {security|performance|quality}

{description}

## Rules

- **No false positives over completeness.** Only report issues you are confident about. When uncertain, omit rather than guess.
- **Attribute every finding.** Every issue must reference a specific file and line number.
- **No editorializing.** Report what is wrong and how to fix it. Do not lecture about best practices in general.
- **Respect the focus.** If `review_focus` is `security`, do not report quality issues unless they are also security-relevant.
- **Actionable fixes.** Every critical and warning issue should include a concrete suggested fix, not just a description.
- **Cross-reference conventions.** Check findings against project config (tsconfig strictness, biome rules, etc.). Do not flag things the project has explicitly configured to allow.
- **Omit empty sections.** If no critical issues exist, omit the Critical Issues section entirely.