---
name: chatondearu-cda-review
description: "Use this skill to review code. It supports both local changes (staged or working tree) and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). It focuses on correctness, maintainability, and adherence to project standards."
metadata:
  decimalai-skill-id: "0e98ea13-3252-440e-9d1b-7befe773d124"
  decimalai-version-id: "84628cd5-414c-4dcb-9200-afbb1f031c36"
  decimalai-version: "1"
  decimalai-body-sha256: "c424d6a7fc4da912468d7ceae52ca5990131c6181c41ac5b1881840c8431be39"
  decimalai-name: "chatondearu/cda-review"
  decimalai-format: "1"
  decimalai-invocation: "model"
  decimalai-category: "code-review"
  decimalai-source: "https://app.decimal.ai/s/chatondearu-cda-review@1/SKILL.md"
---
# Code Reviewer

This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests.

## Workflow

### 1. Determine Review Target
*   **Remote PR**: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR.
*   **Local Changes**: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes).

### 2. Preparation

#### For Remote PRs:
1.  **Checkout**: Use the GitHub CLI to checkout the PR.
    ```bash
    gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER>
    ```
2.  **Preflight**: Execute the project's standard verification suite to catch automated failures early. **Detect the command** rather than assuming one — look for the conventional entrypoint in this order and run the first that applies:
    *   A `Makefile` target such as `make check` / `make test` / `make lint`.
    *   An npm/pnpm/yarn script (`package.json` → `preflight`, `check`, `test`, `lint`).
    *   A language-native runner (`cargo test`, `pytest`, `go test ./...`, etc.).
    *   If the repo root has a `flake.nix` or `.envrc` (direnv), wrap the command with `nix develop -c …` per the `nix-develop-shell` skill.

    If no verification command is discoverable, skip this step and note it in the review.
3.  **Context**: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history.

#### For Local Changes:
1.  **Identify Changes**:
    *   Check status: `git status`
    *   Read diffs: `git diff` (working tree) and/or `git diff --staged` (staged).
2.  **Preflight (Optional)**: If the changes are substantial, ask the user if they want to run the project's verification suite (detected as in the Remote PR flow above) before reviewing.

### 3. In-Depth Analysis
Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars:

*   **Correctness**: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors?
*   **Maintainability**: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to understand and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns.
*   **Readability**: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines?
*   **Efficiency**: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes?
*   **Security**: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices?
*   **Edge Cases and Error Handling**: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors?
*   **Testability**: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (even if preflight checks pass)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness.
*   **Leanness & reuse** (KISS lens): Could this fully work with less code? Does it reinvent a helper, component, service or pattern that already exists in the repo — or something the standard library, the platform, or an already-installed dependency provides? Flag unrequested abstractions, options, wrappers and "for later" code. **Read beyond the diff**: open the code the change touches *and its callers* — the worst finding is often an untouched file that now breaks. State each finding as: what the code does, what goes wrong, the fix, and the cost of skipping it. Never label removing validation, security, accessibility or error handling as "leaner".

### 4. Provide Feedback

#### Structure
*   **Summary**: A high-level overview of the review.
*   **Findings**:
    *   **Critical**: Bugs, security issues, or breaking changes.
    *   **Improvements**: Suggestions for better code quality or performance.
    *   **Nitpicks**: Formatting or minor style issues (optional).
*   **Conclusion**: Clear recommendation (Approved / Request Changes).

#### Tone
*   Be constructive, professional, and friendly.
*   Explain *why* a change is requested.
*   For approvals, acknowledge the specific value of the contribution.

### 5. Cleanup (Remote PRs only)
*   After the review, ask the user if they want to switch back to the default branch (e.g., `main` or `master`).