review
review
Code review with craftsman's eye. Auto-fix obvious issues, surface real bugs.
Reference @AGENTS.md for project conventions. Apply those patterns as review criteria.
Critical Rules
- AUTO-FIX safe obvious issues - Don't ask permission for no-brainers
- HUNT FOR BUGS - Logic errors, edge cases, race conditions first
- WAIT for confirmation - On BUG/FIX, don't execute until user says "go"
- BE CONCISE - One-line items, choices at END
- USE clickable links -
path/to/file.ts:123format only
Categories
| Category | What | Action |
|---|---|---|
| [BUG] | Logic errors, security, data loss, race conditions | Report → wait |
| [FIX] | Type gaps, missing error handling, test gaps, slop | Report → wait |
| [AUTO] | Unused imports, dead code, console.log, typos | Fix immediately |
| [CONSIDER] | Refactors, style opinions, nice-to-have | Mention only |
AUTO Criteria (all must be true)
- Zero risk of breaking behavior
- <5 seconds to fix
- No judgment call needed
AUTO examples:
- Unused imports/variables
- Trailing whitespace
- Console.log (unless intentional)
- Dead/unreachable code
- Obvious typos in comments/strings
NOT AUTO (needs confirmation):
- Removing "unused" function (might be used elsewhere)
- Type changes (might change behavior)
- Any logic change
- AI slop removal (might be intentional)
Project-Specific Checks
Always ask these questions during review:
Can this be simpler?
- Is there unnecessary abstraction? Could this be done with less code?
- Are there helpers/utils being created for one-time operations?
- Over-engineered error handling, feature flags, or backwards-compat shims?
- Unnecessary wrapper components or HOCs?
Can we remove any code?
- Dead code, unused exports, commented-out blocks?
- Re-exports or barrel files (we don't use barrel files)?
- Backwards-compatibility hacks like renamed
_varsor// removedcomments? - Types/interfaces exported but only used in the same file?
Is it DRY without premature abstraction?
- Obvious copy-paste of entire functions or large blocks → refactor
- But 2-3 similar lines are fine — don't abstract too early
- The wrong abstraction is worse than duplication
Is it structured correctly?
- Colocate page-specific components next to their page (not in a nested
components/subfolder — we don't do that in route directories) - General/reusable components go in
apps/web/components/ - API routes: One resource per route, not combined data endpoints
- Server actions for mutations, not POST routes
- Validation schemas in separate
.validation.tsfiles - Helper functions at the bottom of files, not the top
- All imports at the top — no mid-file dynamic imports
- No barrel files (index.ts re-exporting everything from a folder)
Does it follow project patterns? (see @AGENTS.md)
- GET routes wrapped with
withAuthorwithEmailAccount? - Response types exported as
Awaited<ReturnType<typeof fn>>? - SWR for client-side data fetching?
LoadingContentfor loading/error states?useActionfromnext-safe-action/hooksfor form submissions?- Zod schemas with
z.infer<typeof schema>instead of duplicate interfaces? - Self-documenting code? Comments explain "why" not "what"?
logger.trace()for PII fields?- Test changes follow
.claude/skills/testing/SKILL.md? - Tests avoid mocking
@/utils/logger? - If draft-generation prompt, retrieval, routing, or post-processing changed, was
apps/web/utils/ai/reply/draft-attribution.tsDRAFT_PIPELINE_VERSIONbumped for analytics?
Learnings check
- Did this change teach us something that should be captured in
AGENTS.mdor this review file? - Are there patterns that keep coming up that we should document?
Mindset
Inheritance Test: Would I curse the previous author? Understand at 2am?
Pride Test: Would I put my name on this?
Workflow
Step 0: Determine Scope & Group Files
Auto-detect: conversation changes → staged → current diff
git diff --cached --name-only # or HEAD
Group files by area/dependency:
Batch 1: apps/web/app/api/agent/* (3 files)
Batch 2: apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/agent/* (related components)
Batch 3: apps/web/utils/actions/* (2 files)
Output: Found X files in Y batches
──────────
Step 1: Create Review Plan (TODO)
BEFORE reading any file content, create todo list:
- [ ] Batch 1: API routes (skills, allowed-actions)
- [ ] Batch 2: agent page components (agent-page, chat, tools)
- [ ] Batch 3: server actions (agent.ts, agent.validation.ts)
Use todo_write to track batches.
──────────
Step 2: Process Each Batch
For each batch:
- Read diff for batch files only (
git diff --cached -- path/to/files) - Review & categorize issues
- Auto-fix [AUTO] items immediately
- Note [BUG]/[FIX]/[CONSIDER] items
- Mark batch complete in todos
Issue format:
1. **[BUG]** Race condition in concurrent saves — `src/db.ts:45`
2. **[FIX]** Missing error boundary — `src/App.tsx:12`
3. **[CONSIDER]** Extract to custom hook — `src/Form.tsx:34`
After each batch:
Batch 1 done: AUTO: 2 fixed | BUG: 1 | FIX: 2
──────────
Step 3: Summary & Options (After All Batches)
Total: BUG: X | FIX: X | CONSIDER: X (auto-fixed: Y)
Issues:
1. [BUG] ... — `path:line`
2. [FIX] ... — `path:line`
What to fix?
- a) BUG + FIX [recommended]
- b) BUG only
- c) All including CONSIDER
- d) Custom (e.g., "1,3")
I'll assume a) if you don't specify.
Learnings:
- Any patterns worth adding to AGENTS.md?
- Any new review checks to add to this file?
STOP. Wait for selection.
──────────
Step 4: Execute Fixes
Process fixes batch-by-batch (same grouping):
- Update todo list with selected fixes
- For each batch:
- Read relevant file(s)
- Apply fixes
- Mark complete
- Run linter if applicable
Severity Guide
BUG (Logic/Security):
- Business logic errors, wrong conditions
- Race conditions, data loss
- Security: injection, XSS, exposed secrets
- API routes missing auth middleware
- Null/undefined not handled
- Edge cases that break
FIX (Quality):
- Type safety gaps, unsafe casts
- Missing error handling
- Test coverage gaps
- AI slop (WHAT comments, unnecessary try/catch,
as any) - Missing validation
- Combined API routes that should be separate
- POST routes used for mutations instead of server actions
- Barrel files / re-export patterns
CONSIDER (Opinions):
- Refactoring opportunities
- "I would do it differently"
- Performance micro-optimizations
- Style preferences
Git Commands
# Staged
git diff --cached
git diff --cached --name-only
# All uncommitted
git diff HEAD
git diff HEAD --name-only
Error Handling
| Error | Response |
|---|---|
| No changes | "Check git status or specify files" |
| File not found | List available, ask to specify |
| Binary files | Skip, mention in summary |
| Large file (>10k) | "Review specific sections?" |
More from elie222/inbox-zero
ui-components
UI component and styling guidelines using Shadcn UI, Radix UI, and Tailwind
77security
Security guidelines for API route development
36fullstack-workflow
Complete fullstack workflow combining GET API routes, server actions, SWR data fetching, and form handling. Use when building features that need both data fetching and mutations from API to UI.
23test-feature
End-to-end feature testing — browser QA, API verification, eval tests, or any combination. Covers browser interactions (via agent-browser CLI), Google Workspace operations (gws CLI), API calls, and LLM eval tests. Can also persist tests as reusable QA flows or eval files.
21testing
Guidelines for testing the application with Vitest, including unit tests, integration tests (emulator), AI tests, and eval suites for LLM features
21project-structure
Project structure and file organization guidelines
21