Systematic PR review for code quality assurance

Ensure code quality and architectural soundness through systematic Pull Request reviews.

Usage

bash
# Comprehensive PR review
gh pr view 123 --comments
"Systematically review this PR and provide feedback from code quality, security, and architecture perspectives"

# Security-focused review
gh pr diff 123
"Focus on reviewing security risks and vulnerabilities"

# Architecture perspective review
gh pr checkout 123 && find . -name "*.js" | head -10
"Evaluate the architecture from the perspectives of layer separation, dependencies, and SOLID principles"

Basic Examples

bash
# Quantitative code quality assessment
find . -name "*.js" -exec wc -l {} + | sort -rn | head -5
"Evaluate code complexity, function size, and duplication, and point out improvements"

# Security vulnerability check
grep -r "password\|secret\|token" . --include="*.js" | head -10
"Check for risks of sensitive information leakage, hardcoding, and authentication bypass"

# Architecture violation detection
grep -r "import.*from.*\.\./\.\." . --include="*.js"
"Evaluate layer violations, circular dependencies, and coupling issues"

Comment Classification System

text
🔴 critical.must: Critical issues
├─ Security vulnerabilities
├─ Data integrity problems
└─ System failure risks

🟡 high.imo: High-priority improvements
├─ Risk of malfunction
├─ Performance issues
└─ Significant decrease in maintainability

🟢 medium.imo: Medium-priority improvements
├─ Readability enhancement
├─ Code structure improvement
└─ Test quality improvement

🟢 low.nits: Minor points
├─ Style unification
├─ Typo fixes
└─ Comment additions

🔵 info.q: Questions/information
├─ Implementation intent confirmation
├─ Design decision background
└─ Best practices sharing

Review Perspectives

1. Code Correctness

• Logic errors: Boundary values, null checks, exception handling
• Data integrity: Type safety, validation
• Error handling: Completeness, appropriate processing

2. Security

• Authentication/authorization: Appropriate checks, permission management
• Input validation: SQL injection, XSS countermeasures
• Sensitive information: Logging restrictions, encryption

3. Performance

• Algorithms: Time complexity, memory efficiency
• Database: N+1 queries, index optimization
• Resources: Memory leaks, cache utilization

4. Architecture

• Layer separation: Dependency direction, appropriate separation
• Coupling: Tight coupling, interface utilization
• SOLID principles: Single responsibility, open-closed, dependency inversion

Review Flow

1. Pre-check: PR information, change diff, related issues
2. Systematic checks: Security → Correctness → Performance → Architecture
3. Constructive feedback: Specific improvement suggestions and code examples
4. Follow-up: Fix confirmation, CI status, final approval

Comment Templates

Security Issues Template

Format:

• Priority: critical.must.
• Issue: Clear description of the problem
• Code example: Proposed fix
• Rationale: Why this is necessary

Example:

text
critical.must. Password is stored in plaintext

Proposed fix:
const bcrypt = require('bcrypt');
const hashedPassword = await bcrypt.hash(password, 12);

Hashing is required to prevent security risks.

Performance Improvement Template

Format:

• Priority: high.imo.
• Issue: Explain performance impact
• Code example: Proposed improvement
• Effect: Describe expected improvement

Example:

text
high.imo. N+1 query problem occurs

Improvement: Eager Loading
const users = await User.findAll({ include: [Post] });

This can significantly reduce the number of queries.

Architecture Violation Template

Format:

• Priority: high.must.
• Issue: Point out architectural principle violation
• Recommendation: Specific improvement method

Example:

text
high.must. Layer violation occurred

The domain layer directly depends on the infrastructure layer.
Please introduce an interface following the dependency inversion principle.

Notes

• Constructive tone: Collaborative rather than aggressive communication
• Specific suggestions: Provide solutions along with pointing out problems
• Prioritization: Address in order of Critical → High → Medium → Low
• Continuous improvement: Document review results in a knowledge base