Code Review Playbook

Code Review Playbook

This skill provides a comprehensive framework for effective code reviews that improve code quality, share knowledge, and foster collaboration. Whether you're a reviewer giving feedback or an author preparing code for review, this playbook ensures reviews are thorough, consistent, and constructive.

Overview

• Reviewing pull requests or merge requests
• Preparing code for review (self-review)
• Establishing code review standards for teams
• Training new developers on review best practices
• Resolving disagreements about code quality
• Improving review processes and efficiency

Upstream coverage (do not restate)

This skill is a thin wrapper. General review craft is documented first-party elsewhere; only OrchestKit's own decisions live here. Load Read("references/ork-delta.md") for the house rules that survived the retired files.

Conventional Comments

Copy code
issue [blocking]: Missing error handling for API call
If the API returns a 500 error, this will crash. Add try/catch.

security [blocking]: API endpoint is not authenticated
The /api/admin/users endpoint is missing auth middleware.

Load Read("references/conventional-comments.md") for the full format, labels (praise, nitpick, suggestion, issue, question, security, bug, breaking), decorations ([blocking], [non-blocking], [if-minor]), and examples.

Review Process

1. Before Reviewing

Check Context:

• Read the PR/MR description
• Understand the purpose and scope
• Review linked tickets or issues
• Check CI/CD pipeline status

Verify Automated Checks:

• Tests are passing
• Linting has no errors
• Type checking passes
• Code coverage meets targets
• No merge conflicts

Set Aside Time:

• Small PR (< 200 lines): 15-30 minutes
• Medium PR (200-500 lines): 30-60 minutes
• Large PR (> 500 lines): 1-2 hours (or ask to split)

2. During Review

Follow a Pattern:

1. High-Level Review (5-10 minutes)

   • Read PR description and understand intent
   • Skim all changed files to get overview
   • Verify approach makes sense architecturally
   • Check that changes align with stated purpose

2. Detailed Review (20-45 minutes)

   • Line-by-line code review
   • Check logic, edge cases, error handling
   • Verify tests cover new code
   • Look for security vulnerabilities
   • Ensure code follows team conventions

3. Testing Considerations (5-10 minutes)

   • Are tests comprehensive?
   • Do tests test the right things?
   • Are edge cases covered?
   • Is test data realistic?

4. Documentation Check (5 minutes)

   • Are complex sections commented?
   • Is public API documented?
   • Are breaking changes noted?
   • Is README updated if needed?

3. After Reviewing

Provide Clear Decision:

• ✅ Approve: Code is ready to merge
• 💬 Comment: Feedback provided, no action required
• 🔄 Request Changes: Issues must be addressed before merge

Respond to Author:

• Answer questions promptly
• Re-review after changes made
• Approve when issues resolved
• Thank author for addressing feedback

Review Checklists

General Code Quality

• Readability: Code is easy to understand
• Naming: Variables and functions have clear, descriptive names
• Comments: Complex logic is explained
• Formatting: Code follows team style guide
• DRY: No unnecessary duplication
• SOLID Principles: Code follows SOLID where applicable
• Function Size: Functions are focused and < 50 lines
• Cyclomatic Complexity: Functions have complexity < 10

Security

• Authentication: Protected endpoints require auth
• Authorization: Users can only access their own data
• Input Sanitization: SQL injection, XSS prevented
• Secrets Management: No hardcoded credentials or API keys
• Encryption: Sensitive data encrypted at rest and in transit
• Rate Limiting: Endpoints protected from abuse

Quick Start Guide

For Reviewers:

1. Read PR description and understand intent
2. Check that automated checks pass
3. Do high-level review (architecture, approach)
4. Do detailed review (logic, edge cases, tests)
5. Use conventional comments for clear communication
6. Provide decision: Approve, Comment, or Request Changes

For Authors:

1. Write clear PR description
2. Perform self-review before requesting review
3. Ensure all automated checks pass
4. Keep PR focused and reasonably sized (< 400 lines)
5. Respond to feedback promptly and respectfully
6. Make requested changes or explain reasoning

CC Built-in Review Commands (2.1.152+)

This playbook is the manual framework; Claude Code ships built-in commands that automate parts of it:

• /code-review — reviews the current diff for correctness bugs and reuse/simplification/efficiency cleanups.
• /code-review --fix (CC 2.1.152+) — runs the review then applies the findings to your working tree (a bug-hunting review covering correctness plus reuse/simplification/efficiency).
• /code-review --comment — posts findings as inline PR comments.
• /simplify — CC 2.1.154 changed this: it now runs a cleanup-only review (reuse, simplification, efficiency, altitude) and applies the fixes — it no longer invokes the full /code-review --fix bug-hunt. Reach for /simplify for tidy-ups, /code-review --fix for bug-finding-plus-fix.

Use the built-ins for fast diff-scoped passes; use ork:review-pr for the multi-agent, full-PR review (security + testing + architecture).

Skill Version: 2.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-01-08 Maintained by: OrchestKit

Related Skills

• ork:architecture-patterns - Enforce testing and architectural best practices during code review
• ork:security-patterns - Auth, input validation, and OWASP patterns to complement manual review
• ork:testing-unit - Unit testing patterns to verify during review

Rules

Each category has individual rule files in rules/ loaded on-demand:

Total: 5 rules across 4 categories

Available Scripts

• scripts/review-pr.md - Dynamic PR review with auto-fetched GitHub data

  • Auto-fetches: PR title, author, state, changed files, diff stats, comments count
  • Usage: review-pr [PR-number]
  • Requires: GitHub CLI (gh)
  • Uses $ARGUMENTS and !command for live PR data

• assets/pr-template.md - PR description template

There is deliberately no review-report template here; ork:review-pr owns that output shape. See references/ork-delta.md.