Backend Code Review

When to use this skill

Use this skill whenever the user asks to review, analyze, or improve backend code (e.g., .py ) under the api/ directory. Supports the following review modes:

• Pending-change review: when the user asks to review current changes (inspect staged/working-tree files slated for commit to get the changes).

• Code snippets review: when the user pastes code snippets (e.g., a function/class/module excerpt) into the chat and asks for a review.

• File-focused review: when the user points to specific files and asks for a review of those files (one file or a small, explicit set of files, e.g., api/... , api/app.py ).

Do NOT use this skill when:

• The request is about frontend code or UI (e.g., .tsx , .ts , .js , web/ ).

• The user is not asking for a review/analysis/improvement of backend code.

• The scope is not under api/ (unless the user explicitly asks to review backend-related changes outside api/ ).

How to use this skill

Follow these steps when using this skill:

• Identify the review mode (pending-change vs snippet vs file-focused) based on the user’s input. Keep the scope tight: review only what the user provided or explicitly referenced.

• Follow the rules defined in Checklist to perform the review. If no Checklist rule matches, apply General Review Rules as a fallback to perform the best-effort review.

• Compose the final output strictly follow the Required Output Format.

Notes when using this skill:

• Always include actionable fixes or suggestions (including possible code snippets).

• Use best-effort File:Line references when a file path and line numbers are available; otherwise, use the most specific identifier you can.

Checklist

• db schema design: if the review scope includes code/files under api/models/ or api/migrations/ , follow references/db-schema-rule.md to perform the review

• architecture: if the review scope involves controller/service/core-domain/libs/model layering, dependency direction, or moving responsibilities across modules, follow references/architecture-rule.md to perform the review

• repositories abstraction: if the review scope contains table/model operations (e.g., select(...) , session.execute(...) , joins, CRUD) and is not under api/repositories , api/core/repositories , or api/extensions/*/repositories/ , follow references/repositories-rule.md to perform the review

• sqlalchemy patterns: if the review scope involves SQLAlchemy session/query usage, db transaction/crud usage, or raw SQL usage, follow references/sqlalchemy-rule.md to perform the review

General Review Rules

1. Security Review

Check for:

• SQL injection vulnerabilities

• Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

• Command injection

• Insecure deserialization

• Hardcoded secrets/credentials

• Improper authentication/authorization

• Insecure direct object references

2. Performance Review

Check for:

• N+1 queries

• Missing database indexes

• Memory leaks

• Blocking operations in async code

• Missing caching opportunities

3. Code Quality Review

Check for:

• Code forward compatibility

• Code duplication (DRY violations)

• Functions doing too much (SRP violations)

• Deep nesting / complex conditionals

• Magic numbers/strings

• Poor naming

• Missing error handling

• Incomplete type coverage

4. Testing Review

Check for:

• Missing test coverage for new code

• Tests that don't test behavior

• Flaky test patterns

• Missing edge cases

Required Output Format

When this skill invoked, the response must exactly follow one of the two templates:

Template A (any findings)

Code Review Summary

Found <X> critical issues need to be fixed:

🔴 Critical (Must Fix)

1. <brief description of the issue>

FilePath: <path> line <line> <relevant code snippet or pointer>

Explanation

<detailed explanation and references of the issue>

Suggested Fix

1. <brief description of suggested fix>
2. <code example> (optional, omit if not applicable)

... (repeat for each critical issue) ...

Found <Y> suggestions for improvement:

🟡 Suggestions (Should Consider)

1. <brief description of the suggestion>

FilePath: <path> line <line> <relevant code snippet or pointer>

Explanation

<detailed explanation and references of the suggestion>

Suggested Fix

1. <brief description of suggested fix>
2. <code example> (optional, omit if not applicable)

... (repeat for each suggestion) ...

Found <Z> optional nits:

🟢 Nits (Optional)

1. <brief description of the nit>

FilePath: <path> line <line> <relevant code snippet or pointer>

Explanation

<explanation and references of the optional nit>

Suggested Fix

• <minor suggestions>

... (repeat for each nits) ...

✅ What's Good

• <Positive feedback on good patterns>

• If there are no critical issues or suggestions or option nits or good points, just omit that section.

• If the issue number is more than 10, summarize as "Found 10+ critical issues/suggestions/optional nits" and only output the first 10 items.

• Don't compress the blank lines between sections; keep them as-is for readability.

• If there is any issue requires code changes, append a brief follow-up question to ask whether the user wants to apply the fix(es) after the structured output. For example: "Would you like me to use the Suggested fix(es) to address these issues?"

Template B (no issues)

Code Review Summary

✅ No issues found.