Code Review

Code Review Skill

Activate this skill when performing standalone code reviews via the runtime-specific Maestro review entrypoint or during orchestration quality gates (post-phase checks and final completion gate). This skill provides the methodology for scoping, executing, and reporting code reviews.

Scope Detection Protocol

Determine review scope using the following priority order:

1. User-specified paths: If the user provides file paths or glob patterns, expand glob patterns using the glob tool to resolve them to concrete file paths before delegating to the code-reviewer agent
2. Staged changes: If git diff --staged produces output, review staged changes
3. Last commit diff: If no staged changes exist, review the last commit via git diff HEAD~1
4. Fallback: If none of the above yield content, ask the user to specify scope

Always confirm the detected scope with the user before proceeding.

If scope is provided as file paths and a git diff is empty for some paths (for example, new unstaged files), include those files' current contents directly in review context so they are still reviewed.

Review Orchestration

Delegation Flow

1. Detect review scope using the protocol above
2. Gather the full diff content for the detected scope, and include current file contents when diff content is unavailable for scoped files
3. Delegate to the code-reviewer agent with:
   • The full diff content
   • File paths involved
   • Any user-provided focus areas or concerns
4. Process the agent's Task Report
5. Present findings to the user in the structured output format below

Context Enrichment

When delegating to the code-reviewer agent, include:

• The diff content (not just file names)
• Surrounding context for modified sections (10 lines before/after when available)
• Project language and framework information (detected from package.json, Cargo.toml, go.mod, etc.)

Severity Classification

Critical

Issues that could cause security vulnerabilities, data loss, or system crashes:

• SQL/NoSQL injection vectors
• Authentication/authorization bypasses
• Unvalidated user input at system boundaries
• Resource leaks (unclosed connections, file handles)
• Race conditions with data corruption potential

Major

Issues that cause bugs, design flaws, or significant maintainability problems:

• Logic errors in business rules
• Missing error handling on external calls
• SOLID principle violations that impact extensibility
• Incorrect API contracts or type mismatches
• Missing null/undefined checks on external data

Minor

Issues related to style, naming, or minor convention violations:

• Naming inconsistencies
• Code style deviations from project conventions
• Suboptimal but correct implementations
• Missing type annotations where inference is insufficient

Suggestion

Optional improvements that enhance readability or maintainability:

• Alternative patterns that improve clarity
• Performance optimizations with marginal impact
• Structural improvements for future extensibility

Output Format

Present findings in a structured table followed by a summary:

## Code Review Results

**Scope**: [description of what was reviewed]
**Files Reviewed**: [count]
**Total Findings**: [count by severity]

### Findings

| # | Severity | File | Line | Description | Suggested Fix |
|---|----------|------|------|-------------|---------------|
| 1 | Critical | path/to/file.ts | 42 | [description] | [fix] |
| 2 | Major | path/to/file.ts | 87 | [description] | [fix] |

### Summary

[1-2 paragraph summary of overall code quality, patterns observed, and priority actions]

Verification Rule

Every finding must:

• Reference a specific file and line number
• Be verified against the actual code (not assumed from patterns)
• Include a concrete suggested fix or action
• Be classified with a severity that matches the classification criteria above

Do NOT report:

• Speculative issues based on assumptions about runtime behavior
• Style preferences not established by the project's conventions
• Issues in code outside the review scope