Use /review
Systematically review code changes against a base branch with structured, emoji-categorized feedback.
Usage
/review [base-branch=main] [--format inline|summary] [--scope core|full]
Examples:
/review # Review against main, detailed format
/review develop # Review against develop branch
/review --scope core # Focus on core issues only
Output Format
Findings are numbered with emoji prefixes for easy tracking:
ISSUE01: 🔧 Missing input validation src/api/users.ts:45
ISSUE02: ♻️ Extract duplicate logic src/components/Header.tsx:123
ISSUE03: 🌱 Consider async/await src/services/auth.js:78
Format modes:
--inline(default): Full context with code snippets and detailed explanations--summary: Brief one-line descriptions with file paths only
Command Specification
---
argument-hint: [base-branch=main] [--format inline|summary] [--scope core|full]
description: Review code changes against a base branch
---
Base branch: $1
Format: $2
Scope: $3
You are an AI code reviewer. Your task is to review code changes systematically and thoroughly.
## Getting the Diff
First, retrieve the diff of changes to review. The base branch is provided as: $1
If $1 is empty or not provided, use `main` as the default base branch.
Use the following command to get the diff:
```bash
git --no-pager diff --no-prefix $(git merge-base <base-branch> HEAD)
```
Where `<base-branch>` is either the value of $1 or `main` if $1 is not provided.
This will show all changes between the common ancestor of the base branch and your current HEAD, including both committed and uncommitted changes.
## Review Guidelines
Please analyze the code using the following structured guidelines and modern development best practices.
## Focus Areas
Focus on delivering actionable feedback in the following areas:
Critical Issues:
- Security vulnerabilities and potential exploits
- Runtime errors and logic bugs
- Performance bottlenecks and optimization opportunities
- Memory management and resource utilization
- Threading and concurrency issues
- Input validation and error handling
Code Quality:
- Adherence to language-specific conventions and best practices
- Design patterns and architectural considerations
- Code organization and modularity
- Naming conventions and code readability
- Documentation completeness and clarity
- Test coverage and testing approach
Maintainability:
- Code duplication and reusability
- Complexity metrics (cyclomatic complexity, cognitive complexity)
- Dependencies and coupling
- Extensibility and future-proofing
- Technical debt implications
## Use Code Review Emojis
* Each suggestion should be prefixed with an emoji to indicate the type of suggestion:
* 🔧 Change request
* ❓ Question
* ⛏️ Nitpick
* ♻️ Refactor suggestion
* 💭 Thought process or concern
* 👍 Positive feedback
* 📝 Explanatory note or fun fact
* 🌱 Observation for future consideration
Use code review emojis. Give the reviewee added context and clarity to follow up on code review. For example, knowing whether something really requires action (🔧), highlighting nit-picky comments (⛏), flagging out of scope items for follow-up (📌) and clarifying items that don’t necessarily require action but are worth saying ( 👍, 📝, 🤔 )
### Emoji Legend
#### Core Review Types (--scope core)
| | `:code:` | Meaning |
| --- | ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 🔧 | `:wrench:` | Use when this needs to be changed. This is a concern or suggested change that must be addressed. |
| ♻️ | `:recycle:` | Suggestion for refactoring. Should include enough context to be actionable and not be considered a nitpick. |
#### Additional Review Types (--scope full, default)
| | `:code:` | Meaning |
| --- | ------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| ❓ | `:question:` | Use when you have a question. This should be a fully formed question with sufficient information and context that requires a response. |
| ⛏ | `:pick:` | This is a nitpick. This does not require any changes and is often better left unsaid. This may include stylistic, formatting, or organization suggestions and should likely be prevented/enforced by linting if they really matter |
| 💭 | `:thought_balloon:` | Express concern, suggest an alternative solution, or walk through the code in my own words to make sure I understand. |
| 👍 | `:+1:` | Let the author know that you really liked something! This is a way to highlight positive parts of a code review, but use it only if it is really something well thought out. |
| 📝 | `:memo:` | This is an explanatory note, fun fact, or relevant commentary that does not require any action. |
| 🌱 | `:seedling:` | An observation or suggestion that is not a change request, but may have larger implications. Generally something to keep in mind for the future. |
## Output Format
Each review finding must be numbered and formatted as follows:
```
ISSUE01: <emoji> <Short summary> <relative_path:line_number>
```
Example:
```
ISSUE01: 🔧 Missing input validation src/api/users.ts:45
ISSUE02: ♻️ Extract duplicate logic into utility function src/components/Header.tsx:123
ISSUE03: 🌱 Consider using async/await instead of promises src/services/auth.js:78
```
### Format Modes
**--inline** (default if $2 is empty or "--inline"):
- Show numbered findings with full context
- Include relevant code snippets
- Provide detailed explanations and suggestions
- Reference specific lines and patterns
**--summary**:
- Show only the numbered list of findings
- Brief one-line descriptions
- File paths with line numbers
- No code snippets or detailed explanations
### Scope Filtering
Use the `--scope` parameter to filter findings by importance level.
**--scope core**:
- Only include critical actionable findings
- Shows only 🔧 `:wrench:` (change requests) and ♻️ `:recycle:` (refactor suggestions)
- Best for focused reviews when you want to see only what must/should be changed
- Excludes questions, nitpicks, observations, and positive feedback
**--scope full** (default if $3 is empty or "--scope full"):
- Include all review finding types
- Shows core types (🔧, ♻️) plus additional context (❓, ⛏, 💭, 👍, 📝, 🌱)
- Best for comprehensive reviews with full context and learning opportunities
- Includes both critical and informational findings
Related
@code-reviewer- Agent version for automatic invocation- Fresh Eyes Pattern - Pattern this command implements