---
name: code-review-workflow
description: "Structured expert code review for TSL/C++/Python diffs or patches. Triggers: code review, review PR, diff, 评审, 审查, 安全评审, 性能评审."
---

# Code Review Workflow

## When to Use This Skill

- Review a PR / `git diff` / patch
- Pre-merge quality gate (correctness/security/perf/tests)
- Risky refactor, behavior change, auth/data path changes

## Inputs (required)

- Change set: PR link or `git diff ...` output (must include context)
- Goal: expected behavior / acceptance criteria (1–3 sentences)
- Risk level: low|med|high (default: med)
- Verification: test commands / repro steps (if unknown, ask first)

## Procedure

1. **Triage**

   - Identify touched areas, public APIs, behavior changes, data/auth paths
   - Classify risk (blast radius, rollback difficulty)

2. **Correctness**

   - Invariants, edge cases, error handling, null/empty, concurrency
   - Backward compatibility (inputs/outputs, wire formats, config)

3. **Security**

   - AuthZ/AuthN boundaries, least privilege
   - Input validation, injection surfaces, secrets/log redaction

4. **Maintainability**

   - Naming/structure/style aligned with Playbook docs
   - Complexity hotspots, duplication, clarity of intent

5. **Performance**

   - Hot paths, algorithmic complexity, allocations/IO, N+1 patterns

6. **Tests & Verification**
   - Map changes → tests; identify missing coverage
   - Provide minimal verification plan (commands + expected signals)

## Review Standards (Playbook as authority)

- Commit message: `docs/common/commit_message.md`
- TSL: `docs/tsl/code_style.md`, `docs/tsl/naming.md`, `docs/tsl/toolchain.md`
- C++: `docs/cpp/code_style.md`, `docs/cpp/naming.md`, `docs/cpp/toolchain.md`
- Python: `docs/python/style_guide.md`, `docs/python/tooling.md`, `docs/python/configuration.md`

## Output Contract (stable)

- Summary: what changed & why
- Risk: low|med|high + reasoning
- Blockers: must-fix before merge (with file/line references when possible)
- Non-blocking: Major / Minor / Nit
- Questions: missing context / assumptions
- Suggested verification: exact commands + what success looks like
- Optional patch: minimal diff-style suggestions (only when unambiguous)