# code-review

> Interactive code review of PRs or local changes against team standards, golden paths, and optionally the Engineering Codex.

- Author: Ian Farr
- Repository: ifarrpax8/workspace-standards
- Version: 20260210095132
- Stars: 0
- Forks: 0
- Last Updated: 2026-02-10
- Source: https://github.com/ifarrpax8/workspace-standards
- Web: https://mule.run/skillshub/@@ifarrpax8/workspace-standards~code-review:20260210095132

---

# Code Review Skill

Interactive code review of PRs or local changes against team standards, golden paths, and optionally the Engineering Codex.

## Prerequisites

### Required MCP Servers

| MCP Server | Tools Used | Purpose | Required? |
|------------|------------|---------|-----------|
| **user-github** | `get_pull_request` | Fetch PR details | Optional |
| | `get_pull_request_files` | Fetch changed file list | Optional |
| | `get_file_contents` | Fetch file contents for review | Optional |
| **user-mcp-atlassian** | `jira_get_issue` | Fetch linked ticket context | Optional |

### Graceful Degradation

- **No GitHub MCP**: User provides files or diff manually; review is generated as markdown
- **No Engineering Codex**: Skip codex checks; use only golden paths and rules

## When to Use

Use this skill when:
- Reviewing a pull request before merge
- Performing self-review before pushing
- Validating local changes against team standards
- Checking alignment with golden paths and best practices

## Invocation

```
Review PR 42 in currency-manager
```

```
Review my changes on branch HRZN-123
```

```
Review the files I've changed
```

## Workflow

### Phase 1: Identify Changes

1. **If given a PR number**: Fetch PR details and file list via GitHub MCP
   ```
   Use get_pull_request with owner, repo, pull_number
   Use get_pull_request_files with owner, repo, pull_number
   ```

2. **If given a branch or local changes**: Use `git diff` to identify changed files
   ```
   git diff main --name-only
   git diff main -- <path>
   ```

3. **If no GitHub MCP**: Ask user to describe what changed or paste a diff

### Phase 2: Load Standards

Load the relevant rules based on file types present:

| File Type | Rules to Load |
|-----------|---------------|
| `*.kt` | [kotlin-standards.md](../../rules/auto-apply/kotlin-standards.md) |
| `*.vue`, `*.ts` | [vue-standards.md](../../rules/auto-apply/vue-standards.md) |
| `*.tf` | [terraform-standards.md](../../rules/auto-apply/terraform-standards.md) |
| All | [security-standards.md](../../rules/auto-apply/security-standards.md) |

Load the relevant golden path based on project type:

| Project Type | Golden Path |
|--------------|-------------|
| Kotlin Spring Boot | [kotlin-spring-boot.md](../../golden-paths/kotlin-spring-boot.md) |
| Kotlin Axon | [kotlin-axon-cqrs.md](../../golden-paths/kotlin-axon-cqrs.md) |
| Vue MFE | [vue-mfe.md](../../golden-paths/vue-mfe.md) |
| Terraform | [terraform-iac.md](../../golden-paths/terraform-iac.md) |

If `@engineering-codex` is in the workspace:
- Read relevant facet's `best-practices.md` and `gotchas.md` based on changed code

Read [code-review.md](../../rules/code-review.md) for the base checklist.

### Phase 3: Review Each File

For each changed file, apply the review checklist from `rules/code-review.md`:

**Architecture Alignment:**
- Does the code follow the golden path for its project type?
- Proper layer separation (controllers handle HTTP only, services handle logic)

**Code Quality:**
- No linter warnings introduced
- Functions focused (single responsibility)
- Naming clear and consistent

**Testing:**
- New code has corresponding tests
- Tests follow naming convention (`should...when...`)
- Edge cases covered

**Security:**
- No hardcoded secrets
- Input validation present
- Proper error handling

**Quick checks by file type:**

| File Type | Checks |
|-----------|--------|
| `*.kt` | No `@Autowired`, no `!!` without justification, data classes for DTOs |
| `*.vue` | `<script setup>`, typed props/emits, no `v-html` without sanitization, i18n |
| `*.ts` | No `any` types, no `@ts-ignore`, interfaces for complex objects |
| `*Test.kt` / `*.test.ts` | Descriptive names, AAA pattern, minimal mocks |

### Phase 4: Produce Review Summary

Output a structured review:

```markdown
## Code Review: [PR title or branch name]

**Files reviewed:** [N]
**Standards applied:** [list of rules/golden paths used]
**Overall assessment:** Approve / Approve with suggestions / Request changes

---

### Issues Found

#### [MUST FIX] (blocks approval)
| File | Line | Issue | Suggestion |
|------|------|-------|------------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

#### [SUGGESTION] (non-blocking)
| File | Line | Issue | Suggestion |
|------|------|-------|------------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Strengths
- [What's done well]

### Summary
[1-2 sentence overall assessment]
```

### Phase 5: Offer Actions

After presenting the review:

```
What would you like to do?
1. Fix the MUST FIX issues now
2. Post this review as a PR comment (if GitHub MCP available)
3. Copy the review as markdown
```

## Error Handling

### GitHub MCP Not Available

Ask user to provide:
- List of changed files
- Diff content (paste or describe)
- Or point to a branch for `git diff`

Proceed with review using provided content. Output as markdown only.

### Jira MCP Not Available

Skip linked ticket context. Review proceeds without ticket details.

### No Changed Files Found

If `git diff` or PR returns no files:
- Confirm the branch or PR is correct
- Ask user to specify files to review

### Standards File Not Found

If a referenced rule file (e.g., `terraform-standards.md`) does not exist:
- Skip that rule set
- Note in "Standards applied" which rules were unavailable

## Related Resources

- [Code Review Rule](../../rules/code-review.md)
- [Implement Ticket Skill](../implement-ticket/SKILL.md) — uses this checklist in Phase 5
- [Golden Paths](../../golden-paths/)