---

name: code-review-patterns description: "Internal skill. Use cc10x-router for all development tasks." allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob LSP user-invocable: false

Code Review Patterns

Overview

Code reviews catch bugs before they ship. But reviewing code quality before functionality is backwards.

Core principle: First verify it works, THEN verify it's good.

Reference Files

Read only the references needed for the current review:

• references/review-order-and-checkpoints.md for concern-first reading order, review checkpoints, zero-finding halts, and re-review loops
• references/security-review-checklist.md for auth, input/output, secrets, network, storage, and dependency checks
• references/code-review-heuristics.md for maintainability, performance, hidden-failure, edge-case, sloppy-pattern, and UI quick scans

Signal Quality Rule

Flag ONLY when certain. False positives erode trust and waste remediation cycles.

Flag	Do NOT Flag
Will fail to compile/parse (syntax, type, import errors)	Style preferences not in project guidelines
Logic error producing wrong results for all inputs	Potential issues dependent on specific inputs/state
Clear guideline violation (quote the exact rule)	Subjective improvements or nitpicks

Quick Review Checklist (Reference Pattern)

For rapid reviews, check these 8 items:

• Code is simple and readable
• Functions and variables are well-named
• No duplicated code
• Proper error handling
• No exposed secrets or API keys
• Input validation implemented
• Good test coverage
• Performance considerations addressed

The Iron Law

NO CODE QUALITY REVIEW BEFORE SPEC COMPLIANCE

If you haven't verified the code meets requirements, you cannot review code quality.

Two-Stage Review Process

Stage 1: Spec Compliance Review

Does it do what was asked?

1. Read the Requirements

   • What was requested?
   • What are the acceptance criteria?
   • What are the edge cases?

2. Trace the Implementation

   • Does the code implement each requirement?
   • Are all edge cases handled?
   • Does it match the spec exactly?

3. Test Functionality

   • Run the tests
   • Manual test if needed
   • Verify outputs match expectations

Gate: Only proceed to Stage 2 if Stage 1 passes.

Stage 2: Code Quality Review

Is it well-written?

Review in priority order:

1. Security - Vulnerabilities that could be exploited
2. Correctness - Logic errors, edge cases missed
3. Performance - Unnecessary slowness
4. Maintainability - Hard to understand or modify
5. UX - User experience issues (if UI involved)
6. Accessibility - A11y issues (if UI involved)

Review Order

Before scanning code line-by-line, read references/review-order-and-checkpoints.md and reconstruct the change by concern, not by raw diff order.

Security Review

For auth, data, network, storage, or externally reachable code, read references/security-review-checklist.md before forming findings.

LSP-Powered Code Analysis

Use LSP for semantic understanding during reviews:

Task	LSP Tool	Why Better Than Grep
Find all callers of a function	lspCallHierarchy(incoming)	Finds actual calls, not string matches
Find all usages of a type/variable	lspFindReferences	Semantic, not text-based
Navigate to definition	lspGotoDefinition	Jumps to actual definition
Understand what function calls	lspCallHierarchy(outgoing)	Maps call chain

Review Workflow with LSP:

1. localSearchCode → find symbol + get lineHint
2. lspGotoDefinition(lineHint=N) → understand implementation
3. lspFindReferences(lineHint=N) → check all usages for consistency
4. lspCallHierarchy(incoming) → verify callers handle changes

CRITICAL: Always get lineHint from localSearchCode first. Never guess line numbers.

Review Heuristics

For performance, maintainability, edge cases, hidden failures, type-design drift, or UI-specific checks, read references/code-review-heuristics.md.

Wrong/Right — Silent optional chaining:

// WRONG: silently swallows null user
const name = user?.profile?.name ?? 'Unknown';

// RIGHT: log the gap, then degrade
const name = user?.profile?.name;
if (!name) {
  logger.warn('user profile missing name', { userId: user?.id });
}
return name ?? 'Unknown';

Edge Case Classification Taxonomy

Reference checklist for systematic edge case scanning during review:

Category	Examples	Detection
Missing else/default	Switch without default, if without else for nullable	Check switch/if exhaustiveness
Unguarded inputs	No validation on user input, missing null checks	Direct parameter use without validation
Off-by-one	Loop bounds, array indexing, pagination	Review all < vs <=, array[length] vs array[length-1]
Arithmetic edge cases	Division by zero, integer overflow, floating point	/ operator without divisor validation
Implicit type coercion	== instead of ===, string-to-number, truthy/falsy	== (not ===), + with mixed types
Race conditions	Shared mutable state, async without locking	Shared variables modified in async paths
Timeout/retry gaps	No timeout on network calls, no retry exhaustion	fetch/axios without timeout config

Use during Stage 2 Quality Review. Check only categories relevant to the changed code.

Clarity Over Brevity

• Nested ternary a ? b ? c : d : e → Use if/else or switch
• Dense one-liner saving 2 lines → 3 clear lines over 1 clever line
• Chained .map().filter().reduce() with complex callbacks → Named intermediates

Pattern Recognition Criteria

During reviews, identify patterns worth documenting:

Criteria	What to Look For	Example
Tribal	Knowledge new devs wouldn't know	"All API responses use envelope structure"
Opinionated	Specific choices that could differ	"We use snake_case for DB, camelCase for JS"
Unusual	Not standard framework patterns	"Custom retry logic with backoff"
Consistent	Repeated across multiple files	"All services have health check endpoint"

If you spot these during review:

1. Note the pattern in review feedback
2. Include in your Memory Notes (Patterns section) - router will persist to patterns.md via Memory Update task
3. Flag inconsistencies from established patterns

Severity Classification

Severity	Definition	Action
CRITICAL	Security vulnerability or blocks functionality	Must fix before merge
MAJOR	Affects functionality or significant quality issue	Should fix before merge
MINOR	Style issues, small improvements	Can merge, fix later
NIT	Purely stylistic preferences	Optional

Multi-Signal Review Methodology

Each Stage 2 pass produces an independent signal. Score each dimension separately.

HARD signals (any failure blocks approval):

• Security: One real vulnerability = dimension score 0
• Correctness: One logic error producing wrong output = dimension score 0

SOFT signals (concerns noted, don't block alone):

• Performance: Scaling concern without immediate impact
• Maintainability: Complex but functional code
• UX/A11y: Missing states but core flow works

Aggregation rule:

1. If ANY HARD signal = 0 → STATUS: CHANGES_REQUESTED (non-negotiable)
2. CONFIDENCE = min(HARD scores), reduced by max 10 if SOFT signals are low
3. Include per-signal breakdown in Router Handoff for targeted remediation

Zero-Finding Halt

If a review produces ZERO findings across ALL dimensions (security, correctness, performance, maintainability, UX/A11y), the review MUST halt and re-examine. Zero findings in a non-trivial change is a signal of insufficient review depth, not perfect code. Action: Re-read every changed file. Re-run the heuristic scans in references/code-review-heuristics.md. Re-run the security triage in references/security-review-checklist.md. If still zero findings after deliberate re-examination, document: "Zero findings confirmed after forced re-examination of [N files, M lines changed]. Reviewed: [list specific checks performed]." A bare "no issues" without re-examination proof is INVALID.

Evidence requirement per signal: Each signal MUST cite specific file:line. A signal without evidence = not reported.

Do NOT Flag (False Positive Prevention)

• Pre-existing issues not introduced by this change
• Correct code that merely looks suspicious
• Pedantic nitpicks a senior engineer would not flag
• Issues linters already catch (don't duplicate tooling)
• General quality concerns not required by project guidelines
• Issues explicitly silenced via lint-ignore comments

Priority Output Format (Feedback Grouping)

Organize feedback by priority (from reference pattern):

## Code Review Feedback

### Critical (must fix before merge)
- [95] SQL injection at `src/api/users.ts:45`
  → Fix: Use parameterized query `db.query('SELECT...', [userId])`

### Warnings (should fix)
- [85] N+1 query at `src/services/posts.ts:23`
  → Fix: Batch query with WHERE IN clause

### Suggestions (consider improving)
- [70] Function `calc()` could be renamed to `calculateTotal()`
  → More descriptive naming

ALWAYS include specific examples of how to fix each issue. Don't just say "this is wrong" - show the correct approach.

Red Flags - STOP and Re-review

If you find yourself:

• Reviewing code style before checking functionality
• Not running the tests
• Skipping the security checklist
• Giving generic feedback ("looks good")
• Not providing file:line citations
• Not explaining WHY something is wrong
• Not providing fix recommendations

STOP. Start over with Stage 1.

Rationalization Prevention

Excuse	Reality
"Tests pass so it's fine"	Tests can miss requirements. Check spec compliance.
"Code looks clean"	Clean code can still be wrong. Verify functionality.
"I trust this developer"	Trust but verify. Everyone makes mistakes.
"It's a small change"	Small changes cause big bugs. Review thoroughly.
"No time for full review"	Bugs take more time than reviews. Do it properly.
"Security is overkill"	One vulnerability can sink the company. Check it.

Output Format

## Code Review: [PR Title/Component]

### Stage 1: Spec Compliance ✅/❌

**Requirements:**
- [x] Requirement 1 - implemented at `file:line`
- [x] Requirement 2 - implemented at `file:line`
- [ ] Requirement 3 - NOT IMPLEMENTED

**Tests:** PASS (24/24)

**Verdict:** [Meets spec / Missing requirements]

---

### Stage 2: Code Quality

**Security:**
- [CRITICAL] Issue at `file:line` - Fix: [recommendation]
- No issues found ✅

**Performance:**
- [MAJOR] N+1 query at `file:line` - Fix: Use batch query
- No issues found ✅

**Quality:**
- [MINOR] Unclear naming at `file:line` - Suggestion: rename to X
- No issues found ✅

**UX/A11y:** (if UI code)
- [MAJOR] Missing loading state - Fix: Add spinner
- No issues found ✅

---

### Summary

**Decision:** Approve / Request Changes

**Critical:** [count]
**Major:** [count]
**Minor:** [count]

**Required fixes before merge:**
1. [Most important fix]
2. [Second fix]

Review Loop Protocol

After requesting changes:

1. Wait for fixes - Developer addresses issues
2. Re-review - Check that fixes actually fix the issues
3. Verify no regressions - Run tests again
4. Approve or request more changes - Repeat if needed

Never approve without verifying fixes work.

Partial Phase Reviews

When reviewing code from a single phase of a multi-phase plan:

Scope question	Rule
Review only this phase's changes?	YES — do not expand scope to future phases
Flag problems in untouched code discovered during review?	Note for follow-up; do not block this phase
Verify phase exit criteria?	YES — the plan defines exit criteria per phase; verify those, not the final product
Review integration points with future phases?	Flag interface concerns only — do not require future-phase implementation

Key principle: A partial-phase review succeeds when the phase exit criteria are met and no regressions exist. "Incomplete feature" is not a valid rejection reason if the plan has more phases.

Final Check

Before approving:

• Stage 1 complete (spec compliance verified)
• Stage 2 complete (all checklists reviewed)
• All critical/major issues addressed
• Tests pass
• No regressions introduced
• Evidence captured for each claim