ITFE Code Review
/install itfe-code-review
ITFE Code Review
🌐 Language Requirement
CRITICAL: You MUST respond ONLY in Simplified Chinese (简体中文).
- All review reports, findings, descriptions, and suggestions MUST be in Chinese
- All communication with the user MUST be in Chinese
- Code comments and variable names can remain in their original language
- Do NOT use English, Japanese, Korean, or any other language for explanations
Overview
Perform a structured review of the current git changes with focus on SOLID, architecture, removal candidates, and security risks. Default to review-only output unless the user asks to implement changes.
Severity Levels
| Level | Name | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | Critical | Security vulnerability, data loss risk, correctness bug | Must block merge |
| P1 | High | Logic error, significant SOLID violation, performance regression | Should fix before merge |
| P2 | Medium | Code smell, maintainability concern, minor SOLID violation | Fix in this PR or create follow-up |
| P3 | Low | Style, naming, minor suggestion | Optional improvement |
Workflow
1) Preflight context
- Use
git status -sb,git diff --stat, andgit diffto scope changes. - If needed, use
rgorgrepto find related modules, usages, and contracts. - Identify entry points, ownership boundaries, and critical paths (auth, payments, data writes, network).
Edge cases:
- No changes: If
git diffis empty, inform user and ask if they want to review staged changes or a specific commit range. - Large diff (>500 lines): Summarize by file first, then review in batches by module/feature area.
- Mixed concerns: Group findings by logical feature, not just file order.
2) SOLID + architecture smells
- Load
references/solid-checklist.mdfor specific prompts. - Look for:
- SRP: Overloaded modules with unrelated responsibilities.
- OCP: Frequent edits to add behavior instead of extension points.
- LSP: Subclasses that break expectations or require type checks.
- ISP: Wide interfaces with unused methods.
- DIP: High-level logic tied to low-level implementations.
- When you propose a refactor, explain why it improves cohesion/coupling and outline a minimal, safe split.
- If refactor is non-trivial, propose an incremental plan instead of a large rewrite.
3) Removal candidates + iteration plan
- Load
references/removal-plan.mdfor template. - Identify code that is unused, redundant, or feature-flagged off.
- Distinguish safe delete now vs defer with plan.
- Provide a follow-up plan with concrete steps and checkpoints (tests/metrics).
4) Security and reliability scan
- Load
references/security-checklist.mdfor coverage. - Check for:
- XSS, injection (SQL/NoSQL/command), SSRF, path traversal
- AuthZ/AuthN gaps, missing tenancy checks
- Secret leakage or API keys in logs/env/files
- Rate limits, unbounded loops, CPU/memory hotspots
- Unsafe deserialization, weak crypto, insecure defaults
- Race conditions: concurrent access, check-then-act, TOCTOU, missing locks
- Call out both exploitability and impact.
5) Code quality scan
- Load
references/code-quality-checklist.mdfor coverage. - Check for:
- Error handling: swallowed exceptions, overly broad catch, missing error handling, async errors
- Performance: N+1 queries, CPU-intensive ops in hot paths, missing cache, unbounded memory
- Boundary conditions: null/undefined handling, empty collections, numeric boundaries, off-by-one
- Flag issues that may cause silent failures or production incidents.
6) Output format
CRITICAL: Output all content in Simplified Chinese (简体中文).
Structure your review as follows:
## 代码审查报告
**审查文件数**:X 个文件,Y 行变更
**总体评估**:[通过 / 需要修改 / 建议]
---
## 发现的问题
### P0 - 严重
(无 或 列表)
### P1 - 高
- **[文件:行号]** 简短标题
- 问题描述
- 修复建议
### P2 - 中
...
### P3 - 低
...
---
## 删除/迭代计划
(如适用)
## 其他建议
(可选改进,不阻塞)
Inline comments: Use this format for file-specific findings:
::code-comment{file="path/to/file.ts" line="42" severity="P1"}
Description of the issue and suggested fix.
::
Clean review (in Chinese): If no issues found, explicitly state:
- 检查了什么内容
- 未覆盖的区域(例如:"未验证数据库迁移")
- 残留风险或建议的后续测试
7) Next steps confirmation (in Chinese)
After presenting findings, ask user how to proceed (in Chinese):
---
## 下一步行动
我发现了 X 个问题(P0: _, P1: _, P2: _, P3: _)。
**你希望如何处理?**
1. **全部修复** - 我将实现所有建议的修复
2. **仅修复 P0/P1** - 处理严重和高优先级问题
3. **修复指定项** - 告诉我要修复哪些问题
4. **不做修改** - 仅审查,不需要实现
请选择一个选项或提供具体指示。
Important: Do NOT implement any changes until user explicitly confirms. This is a review-first workflow. All communication must be in Chinese.
Resources
references/
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
solid-checklist.md |
SOLID smell prompts and refactor heuristics |
security-checklist.md |
Web/app security and runtime risk checklist |
code-quality-checklist.md |
Error handling, performance, boundary conditions |
removal-plan.md |
Template for deletion candidates and follow-up plan |
- Make sure OpenClaw is installed (local or Docker)
- Run the install command in chat:
/install itfe-code-review - After installation, invoke the skill by name or use
/itfe-code-review - Provide required inputs per the skill's parameter spec and get structured output
What is ITFE Code Review?
Expert code review of current git changes with a senior engineer lens. Detects SOLID violations, security risks, and proposes actionable improvements. It is an AI Agent Skill for Claude Code / OpenClaw, with 51 downloads so far.
How do I install ITFE Code Review?
Run "/install itfe-code-review" in the OpenClaw or Claude Code chat to install it in one step — no extra setup required.
Is ITFE Code Review free?
Yes, ITFE Code Review is completely free, licensed under MIT-0. You can download, install and use it at no cost.
Which platforms does ITFE Code Review support?
ITFE Code Review is cross-platform and runs anywhere OpenClaw / Claude Code is available (cross-platform).
Who created ITFE Code Review?
It is built and maintained by Shan Yinlong (@yorickshan); the current version is v1.0.0.