---

name: code-review description: Code review mode - comprehensive review with security, performance, and maintainability focus

CODE REVIEW MODE

Current Time: !date Git Commit: !git rev-parse --short HEAD

Perform a comprehensive code review using the Principal Engineer agent.

Review Protocol

Phase 1: Context Gathering

First, understand what changed:

git diff [base] -- [files]
git log --oneline -10 -- [files]

Launch exploration if needed:

background_task(agent="explore", prompt="Find related code and tests...")

Phase 2: Multi-Dimensional Review

Request Principal review with full context:

@principal Please perform a thorough code review:

## Changes to Review
$ARGUMENTS

## Review Dimensions

### 1. Correctness
- [ ] Logic is correct for all cases
- [ ] Edge cases are handled
- [ ] Assumptions are valid
- [ ] Error states are managed

### 2. Security
- [ ] No injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, command)
- [ ] Input validation is present and complete
- [ ] Sensitive data is protected
- [ ] Authentication/authorization is correct
- [ ] No secrets in code
- [ ] Dependencies are secure

### 3. Performance
- [ ] No unnecessary operations or loops
- [ ] Efficient algorithms for the scale
- [ ] No memory leaks or resource exhaustion
- [ ] Database queries are optimized (no N+1)
- [ ] Appropriate caching if needed

### 4. Reliability
- [ ] Error handling is comprehensive
- [ ] Failures are graceful
- [ ] Retry logic where appropriate
- [ ] Resource cleanup is guaranteed

### 5. Maintainability
- [ ] Code is readable and self-documenting
- [ ] Functions are focused (single responsibility)
- [ ] Naming is clear and consistent
- [ ] No unnecessary duplication
- [ ] Follows existing patterns

### 6. Testing
- [ ] Tests exist for new functionality
- [ ] Edge cases are tested
- [ ] Error paths are tested
- [ ] Tests are reliable (not flaky)

Phase 3: Specialist Consultation (If Needed)

For specific concerns:

Concern	Agent	Focus
Security issues	@security	Deep vulnerability analysis
Reliability concerns	@sre	Scalability, SLOs, observability
Performance concerns	@perf	Profiling, bottlenecks, optimization
Architecture questions	@architect	Design patterns, structure
Test strategy	@testing	Coverage, approach

Review Output Format

## Summary

[APPROVE / NEEDS WORK / BLOCK] — [one-line summary]

## Critical Issues (must fix before merge)

- [ ] **[SECURITY]** [Issue] at `file:line`
  - Impact: [what could go wrong]
  - Fix: [how to fix]

## High Priority (should fix before merge)

- [ ] **[BUG]** [Issue] at `file:line`
  - Rationale: [why this matters]
  - Suggestion: [how to improve]

## Suggestions (consider for this PR or follow-up)

- [ ] [Suggestion] at `file:line`

## What's Done Well

- [Specific positive observation]
- [Another positive]

## Security Assessment

[Brief security posture of the changes]

## Performance Assessment

[Brief performance impact analysis]

Output

Write to Obsidian via obsidian_append_content at: $OBSIDIAN_PATH/Reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-target.md

Note: $OBSIDIAN_PATH must be a vault-relative path (e.g., Projects/myapp), set per-project via direnv. The obsidian_append_content tool expects paths relative to the vault root.

Document Structure

Use this template for the Obsidian document:

@~/.config/opencode/templates/code-review.md

Review Scope

$ARGUMENTS