d5f4e9461e
- Add central context index at .opencode/context/index.md (120 tokens) - Add compact metadata to all 9 context files (10 tokens each) - Update OpenAgent prompt to reference index system (73% token reduction) - Update context-guide.md with index usage documentation Benefits: - Single index file for context discovery - Human-readable and machine-parseable format - Clear dependency tracking (tests→code, review→code+patterns, etc.) - Priority levels (critical/high/medium) for all contexts - Reduced prompt overhead from ~200 to ~53 tokens Context files updated: - standards/code.md, docs.md, tests.md, patterns.md, analysis.md - workflows/delegation.md, review.md, task-breakdown.md, sessions.md This implements a scalable, maintainable context system with efficient token usage and clear navigation structure.
3.2 KiB
Code Review Guidelines
Quick Reference
Golden Rule: Review code as you'd want yours reviewed - thoroughly but kindly
Checklist: Functionality, Code Quality, Security, Testing, Performance, Maintainability
Report Format: Summary, Assessment, Issues (🔴🟡🔵), Positive Observations, Recommendations
Principles: Constructive, Thorough, Timely
Principles
Constructive: Focus on code not person, explain WHY, suggest improvements, acknowledge good practices Thorough: Check functionality not just style, consider edge cases, think maintainability, look for security Timely: Review promptly, don't block unnecessarily, prioritize critical issues
Review Checklist
Functionality
- Does what it's supposed to do
- Edge cases handled
- Error cases handled
- No obvious bugs
Code Quality
- Clear, descriptive naming
- Functions small and focused
- No unnecessary complexity
- Follows coding standards
- DRY - no duplication
Security
- Input validation present
- No SQL injection vulnerabilities
- No XSS vulnerabilities
- No hardcoded secrets
- Sensitive data handled properly
- Auth/authorization appropriate
Testing
- Tests present
- Happy path covered
- Edge cases covered
- Error cases covered
- All tests pass
Performance
- No obvious performance issues
- Efficient algorithms
- No unnecessary operations
- Resources properly managed
Maintainability
- Easy to understand
- Complex logic documented
- Follows project conventions
- Easy to modify/extend
Review Report Format
## Code Review: {Feature/PR Name}
**Summary:** {Brief overview}
**Assessment:** Approve / Needs Work / Requires Changes
---
### Issues Found
#### 🔴 Critical (Must Fix)
- **File:** `src/auth.js:42`
**Issue:** Password stored in plain text
**Fix:** Hash password before storing
#### 🟡 Warnings (Should Fix)
- **File:** `src/user.js:15`
**Issue:** No input validation
**Fix:** Validate email format
#### 🔵 Suggestions (Nice to Have)
- **File:** `src/utils.js:28`
**Issue:** Could be more concise
**Fix:** Use array methods instead of loop
---
### Positive Observations
- ✅ Good test coverage (95%)
- ✅ Clear function names
- ✅ Proper error handling
---
### Recommendations
{Next steps, improvements, follow-up items}
Common Issues
Security
🔴 Hardcoded credentials 🔴 SQL injection vulnerabilities 🔴 Missing input validation 🔴 Exposed sensitive data
Code Quality
🟡 Large functions (>50 lines) 🟡 Deep nesting (>3 levels) 🟡 Code duplication 🟡 Unclear naming
Testing
🟡 Missing tests 🟡 Low coverage (<80%) 🟡 Flaky tests 🟡 Tests testing implementation
Best Practices
✅ Review within 24 hours ✅ Provide specific, actionable feedback ✅ Explain WHY, not just WHAT ✅ Suggest alternatives ✅ Acknowledge good work ✅ Use severity levels (Critical/Warning/Suggestion) ✅ Test the code if possible ✅ Check for security issues first
Golden Rule: Review code as you'd want yours reviewed - thoroughly but kindly.