home / skills / davila7 / claude-code-templates / code-review
This skill analyzes code changes for Sentry-style review, identifying runtime, performance, security, and design issues to improve quality.
npx playbooks add skill davila7/claude-code-templates --skill code-reviewReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: code-review
description: Perform code reviews following Sentry engineering practices. Use when reviewing pull requests, examining code changes, or providing feedback on code quality. Covers security, performance, testing, and design review.
---
# Sentry Code Review
Follow these guidelines when reviewing code for Sentry projects.
## Review Checklist
### Identifying Problems
Look for these issues in code changes:
- **Runtime errors**: Potential exceptions, null pointer issues, out-of-bounds access
- **Performance**: Unbounded O(n²) operations, N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations
- **Side effects**: Unintended behavioral changes affecting other components
- **Backwards compatibility**: Breaking API changes without migration path
- **ORM queries**: Complex Django ORM with unexpected query performance
- **Security vulnerabilities**: Injection, XSS, access control gaps, secrets exposure
### Design Assessment
- Do component interactions make logical sense?
- Does the change align with existing project architecture?
- Are there conflicts with current requirements or goals?
### Test Coverage
Every PR should have appropriate test coverage:
- Functional tests for business logic
- Integration tests for component interactions
- End-to-end tests for critical user paths
Verify tests cover actual requirements and edge cases. Avoid excessive branching or looping in test code.
### Long-Term Impact
Flag for senior engineer review when changes involve:
- Database schema modifications
- API contract changes
- New framework or library adoption
- Performance-critical code paths
- Security-sensitive functionality
## Feedback Guidelines
### Tone
- Be polite and empathetic
- Provide actionable suggestions, not vague criticism
- Phrase as questions when uncertain: "Have you considered...?"
### Approval
- Approve when only minor issues remain
- Don't block PRs for stylistic preferences
- Remember: the goal is risk reduction, not perfect code
## Common Patterns to Flag
### Python/Django
```python
# Bad: N+1 query
for user in users:
print(user.profile.name) # Separate query per user
# Good: Prefetch related
users = User.objects.prefetch_related('profile')
```
### TypeScript/React
```typescript
// Bad: Missing dependency in useEffect
useEffect(() => {
fetchData(userId);
}, []); // userId not in deps
// Good: Include all dependencies
useEffect(() => {
fetchData(userId);
}, [userId]);
```
### Security
```python
# Bad: SQL injection risk
cursor.execute(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}")
# Good: Parameterized query
cursor.execute("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = %s", [user_id])
```
## References
- [Sentry Code Review Guidelines](https://develop.sentry.dev/engineering-practices/code-review/)
This skill performs code reviews following Sentry engineering practices, tuned for Python and Django projects but applicable to multi-language stacks. It helps reviewers spot runtime errors, performance regressions, security risks, and design or testing gaps. Use it to produce focused, actionable feedback that reduces risk while respecting developer time.
The skill inspects diffs and pull requests and highlights issues across security, performance, testing, and design. It checks for runtime error patterns, expensive query or loop patterns (N+1, O(n²)), API or schema changes, missing tests, and security anti-patterns. Feedback is written with polite, actionable suggestions and escalation guidance for risky changes.
When should I escalate a change to a senior engineer?
Escalate for database schema changes, API contract changes, new framework adoption, performance-critical paths, or any security-sensitive functionality.
Should I block PRs for stylistic issues?
No. Avoid blocking for style-only concerns; prefer automated linters and focus reviews on correctness, safety, and architecture.