Alexander Hinrichs
57f52fd4b7
Add comprehensive custom agents for specialized workflows: - gentoo-sysadmin: Gentoo Linux system administration (OpenRC, Portage) - tdd-test-writer: TDD Ping-Pong workflow implementation - code-reviewer: Code review against strict style guidelines - documentation-writer: Comprehensive project documentation - python-ai-tutor: AI/ML coursework assistant with teaching focus - dotfiles-manager: Dotfiles management with chezmoi Add custom slash commands for quick workflows: - /gentoo-update: Safe Gentoo system update procedure - /tdd-next: Start next TDD test cycle - /style-check: Comprehensive code style validation - /doc-sync: Update all project documentation - /review-pr: Review pull request before merge - /script-install: Install system script with proper permissions Updated .gitignore to properly track agents and commands while excluding session-specific data (plans/, etc.) Added README.md documenting the configuration structure and usage. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.1 KiB
3.1 KiB
Review Pull Request
Comprehensive code review before submitting or merging pull request.
Pre-Review Checks
-
Get PR details:
gh pr view <number> gh pr diff <number> -
Review commit history:
git log origin/main..HEAD --oneline -
Check changed files:
git diff origin/main..HEAD --stat git diff origin/main..HEAD
Code Review Checklist
Code Quality
Style Compliance
- 80-character line limit enforced
- 2-space indentation consistent
- Language-specific style guide followed
- No commented-out code
- No debug print statements
Code Structure
- Functions are focused (single responsibility)
- No excessive nesting (>3 levels)
- No magic numbers
- Descriptive variable/function names
- No duplicate code (DRY)
Comments & Documentation
- Complex logic has explanatory comments
- Comments explain WHY, not WHAT
- No obvious/redundant comments
- Documentation updated (README, API docs)
Security Review
- No hardcoded secrets (API keys, passwords, tokens)
- Input validation present
- SQL queries parameterized (no string concatenation)
- Output properly encoded (XSS prevention)
- Authentication/authorization checks in place
- No unsafe deserialization
- Dependencies are up to date
- Secrets use environment variables or secret manager
Testing
- Tests added for new functionality
- Tests pass locally
- Edge cases covered
- No tests disabled/skipped without justification
- Test names describe behavior
- Mocks used appropriately
Functionality
- Code solves the stated problem
- No over-engineering
- Error handling appropriate
- Logging at appropriate levels
- Performance considerations addressed
- Backwards compatibility maintained (if applicable)
Git Hygiene
- Commit messages follow conventions
- Commits are atomic and focused
- No merge commits (should be rebased)
- No commits with "WIP" or "fix typo"
- Branch name follows conventions
Review Output Format
✅ Approved
[What was done well - be specific]
⚠️ Warnings (Non-blocking)
[Issues that should be addressed but don't block merge]
Example:
src/utils.py:42- Function could be simplifiedREADME.md- Missing example for new feature
❌ Required Changes (Blocking)
[Critical issues that MUST be fixed before merge]
Example:
src/api.py:78- SQL injection vulnerability (use parameterized query)tests/- No tests for new authentication flow.env- Secrets file committed, must be removed from history
💡 Suggestions (Optional)
[Nice-to-have improvements for future consideration]
Summary
[Overall assessment and recommendation: Approve / Request Changes / Comment]
Commands
Review locally:
gh pr checkout <number>
make test
make lint
Leave review comment:
gh pr review <number> --comment -b "<message>"
Approve:
gh pr review <number> --approve
Request changes:
gh pr review <number> --request-changes -b "<message>"