code-review-excellence – skill Lập trình cho agent AI

Code Review Excellence

Transform code reviews from gatekeeping to knowledge sharing through constructive feedback, systematic analysis, and collaborative improvement.

When to Use This Skill

• Reviewing pull requests and code changes
• Establishing code review standards for teams
• Mentoring junior developers through reviews
• Conducting architecture reviews
• Creating review checklists and guidelines
• Improving team collaboration
• Reducing code review cycle time
• Maintaining code quality standards

Core Principles

1. The Review Mindset

Goals of Code Review:

• Catch bugs and edge cases
• Ensure code maintainability
• Share knowledge across team
• Enforce coding standards
• Improve design and architecture
• Build team culture

Not the Goals:

• Show off knowledge
• Nitpick formatting (use linters)
• Block progress unnecessarily
• Rewrite to your preference

2. Effective Feedback

Good Feedback is:

• Specific and actionable
• Educational, not judgmental
• Focused on the code, not the person
• Balanced (praise good work too)
• Prioritized (critical vs nice-to-have)

❌ Bad: "This is wrong."
✅ Good: "This could cause a race condition when multiple users
access simultaneously. Consider using a mutex here."

❌ Bad: "Why didn't you use X pattern?"
✅ Good: "Have you considered the Repository pattern? It would
make this easier to test. Here's an example: [link]"

❌ Bad: "Rename this variable."
✅ Good: "[nit] Consider `userCount` instead of `uc` for
clarity. Not blocking if you prefer to keep it."

3. Review Scope

What to Review:

• Logic correctness and edge cases
• Security vulnerabilities
• Performance implications
• Test coverage and quality
• Error handling
• Documentation and comments
• API design and naming
• Architectural fit

What Not to Review Manually:

• Code formatting (use Prettier, Black, etc.)
• Import organization
• Linting violations
• Simple typos

Review Process

Phase 1: Context Gathering (2-3 minutes)

Before diving into code, understand:

1. Read PR description and linked issue
2. Check PR size (>400 lines? Ask to split)
3. Review CI/CD status (tests passing?)
4. Understand the business requirement
5. Note any relevant architectural decisions

Phase 2: High-Level Review (5-10 minutes)

1. **Architecture & Design**
   - Does the solution fit the problem?
   - Are there simpler approaches?
   - Is it consistent with existing patterns?
   - Will it scale?

2. **File Organization**
   - Are new files in the right places?
   - Is code grouped logically?
   - Are there duplicate files?

3. **Testing Strategy**
   - Are there tests?
   - Do tests cover edge cases?
   - Are tests readable?

Phase 3: Line-by-Line Review (10-20 minutes)

For each file:

1. **Logic & Correctness**
   - Edge cases handled?
   - Off-by-one errors?
   - Null/undefined checks?
   - Race conditions?

2. **Security**
   - Input validation?
   - SQL injection risks?
   - XSS vulnerabilities?
   - Sensitive data exposure?

3. **Performance**
   - N+1 queries?
   - Unnecessary loops?
   - Memory leaks?
   - Blocking operations?

4. **Maintainability**
   - Clear variable names?
   - Functions doing one thing?
   - Complex code commented?
   - Magic numbers extracted?

Phase 4: Summary & Decision (2-3 minutes)

1. Summarize key concerns
2. Highlight what you liked
3. Make clear decision:
   - ✅ Approve
   - 💬 Comment (minor suggestions)
   - 🔄 Request Changes (must address)
4. Offer to pair if complex

Before writing review feedback, read references/review-techniques.md for checklists, question framing, collaboration, and severity techniques.

Before language-specific, architectural, test-quality, or security review, read references/review-patterns.md for review patterns and checklists.

Giving Difficult Feedback

Pattern: The Sandwich Method (Modified)

Traditional: Praise + Criticism + Praise (feels fake)

Better: Context + Specific Issue + Helpful Solution

Example:
"I noticed the payment processing logic is inline in the
controller. This makes it harder to test and reuse.

[Specific Issue]
The calculateTotal() function mixes tax calculation,
discount logic, and database queries, making it difficult
to unit test and reason about.

[Helpful Solution]
Could we extract this into a PaymentService class? That
would make it testable and reusable. I can pair with you
on this if helpful."

Handling Disagreements

When author disagrees with your feedback:

1. **Seek to Understand**
   "Help me understand your approach. What led you to
   choose this pattern?"

2. **Acknowledge Valid Points**
   "That's a good point about X. I hadn't considered that."

3. **Provide Data**
   "I'm concerned about performance. Can we add a benchmark
   to validate the approach?"

4. **Escalate if Needed**
   "Let's get [architect/senior dev] to weigh in on this."

5. **Know When to Let Go**
   If it's working and not a critical issue, approve it.
   Perfection is the enemy of progress.

Best Practices

1. Review Promptly: Within 24 hours, ideally same day

2. Limit PR Size: 200-400 lines max for effective review

3. Review in Time Blocks: 60 minutes max, take breaks

4. Use Review Tools: GitHub, GitLab, or dedicated tools

5. Automate What You Can: Linters, formatters, security scans

6. Build Rapport: Emoji, praise, and empathy matter

7. Be Available: Offer to pair on complex issues

8. Learn from Others: Review others' review comments

Common Pitfalls

• Perfectionism: Blocking PRs for minor style preferences
• Scope Creep: "While you're at it, can you also..."
• Inconsistency: Different standards for different people
• Delayed Reviews: Letting PRs sit for days
• Ghosting: Requesting changes then disappearing
• Rubber Stamping: Approving without actually reviewing
• Bike Shedding: Debating trivial details extensively

Templates

PR Review Comment Template

## Summary

[Brief overview of what was reviewed]

## Strengths

- [What was done well]
- [Good patterns or approaches]

## Required Changes

🔴 [Blocking issue 1]
🔴 [Blocking issue 2]

## Suggestions

💡 [Improvement 1]
💡 [Improvement 2]

## Questions

❓ [Clarification needed on X]
❓ [Alternative approach consideration]

## Verdict

✅ Approve after addressing required changes