232 lines
8.2 KiB
Markdown
232 lines
8.2 KiB
Markdown
# Generate Code Review Task
|
|
|
|
## Task Overview
|
|
**Task ID:** generate-code-review
|
|
**Persona:** Polyglot Code Review Specialist
|
|
**Category:** Code Quality Assurance
|
|
**Priority:** High
|
|
**Estimated Duration:** 15-45 minutes per review
|
|
|
|
## Task Description
|
|
Generate comprehensive code reviews for multi-language codebases, focusing on security, performance, maintainability, and cross-platform consistency across React, TypeScript, Node.js, ASP.NET, and Python implementations.
|
|
|
|
## Input Parameters
|
|
|
|
### Required Inputs
|
|
- **Code Repository**: Git repository URL or code files
|
|
- **Review Scope**: Specific files, modules, or full codebase
|
|
- **Technology Stack**: Primary and secondary technologies used
|
|
- **Review Type**: Security-focused, performance-focused, or comprehensive
|
|
- **Priority Level**: Critical, high, medium, or low priority review
|
|
|
|
### Optional Inputs
|
|
- **Existing Issues**: Known problems or areas of concern
|
|
- **Performance Requirements**: Specific performance benchmarks
|
|
- **Security Requirements**: Compliance standards or security policies
|
|
- **Team Context**: Developer experience level and project timeline
|
|
- **Integration Points**: Related systems and cross-platform dependencies
|
|
|
|
## Processing Steps
|
|
|
|
### 1. Code Analysis Preparation
|
|
\```yaml
|
|
analysis_setup:
|
|
- repository_clone: "Clone or access code repository"
|
|
- dependency_scan: "Analyze package.json, requirements.txt, .csproj files"
|
|
- architecture_review: "Understand overall system architecture"
|
|
- change_analysis: "Identify modified files and impact scope"
|
|
- context_gathering: "Review related documentation and requirements"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 2. Multi-Language Code Review
|
|
\```yaml
|
|
language_specific_review:
|
|
react_typescript:
|
|
- component_architecture: "Review component design and lifecycle"
|
|
- hooks_usage: "Validate hooks patterns and dependencies"
|
|
- performance_patterns: "Check for unnecessary re-renders and optimizations"
|
|
- accessibility: "Ensure WCAG compliance and semantic HTML"
|
|
- type_safety: "Validate TypeScript usage and type definitions"
|
|
|
|
nodejs:
|
|
- async_patterns: "Review Promise/async-await usage"
|
|
- error_handling: "Validate error handling and logging"
|
|
- security_practices: "Check for common Node.js vulnerabilities"
|
|
- middleware_design: "Review Express/Fastify middleware patterns"
|
|
- performance_optimization: "Analyze memory usage and response times"
|
|
|
|
aspnet:
|
|
- mvc_patterns: "Review controller and action design"
|
|
- dependency_injection: "Validate DI container usage"
|
|
- entity_framework: "Review data access patterns and queries"
|
|
- security_implementation: "Check authentication and authorization"
|
|
- performance_considerations: "Analyze caching and optimization"
|
|
|
|
python:
|
|
- pythonic_code: "Ensure PEP 8 compliance and Python idioms"
|
|
- framework_patterns: "Review Django/Flask implementation patterns"
|
|
- data_processing: "Validate data handling and processing efficiency"
|
|
- testing_practices: "Review unit tests and test coverage"
|
|
- security_practices: "Check for common Python vulnerabilities"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 3. Cross-Platform Analysis
|
|
\```yaml
|
|
integration_review:
|
|
- api_consistency: "Validate API contracts across platforms"
|
|
- authentication_patterns: "Review auth implementation consistency"
|
|
- error_handling: "Ensure standardized error responses"
|
|
- logging_standards: "Validate logging patterns and formats"
|
|
- data_serialization: "Review JSON/XML handling consistency"
|
|
- performance_alignment: "Check response time consistency"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 4. Security Assessment
|
|
\```yaml
|
|
security_review:
|
|
- vulnerability_scan: "OWASP Top 10 vulnerability assessment"
|
|
- dependency_security: "Third-party library security analysis"
|
|
- input_validation: "Review data validation and sanitization"
|
|
- authentication_security: "Validate auth implementation security"
|
|
- authorization_patterns: "Review access control implementation"
|
|
- data_protection: "Assess sensitive data handling"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 5. Performance Analysis
|
|
\```yaml
|
|
performance_review:
|
|
- bottleneck_identification: "Identify performance bottlenecks"
|
|
- optimization_opportunities: "Suggest performance improvements"
|
|
- resource_usage: "Analyze memory and CPU usage patterns"
|
|
- caching_strategies: "Review caching implementation"
|
|
- database_optimization: "Analyze query performance and indexing"
|
|
- scalability_assessment: "Evaluate scalability considerations"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Output Generation
|
|
|
|
### Comprehensive Review Report
|
|
\```markdown
|
|
# Code Review Report: [Project/Module Name]
|
|
|
|
## Executive Summary
|
|
- **Overall Rating**: [1-5 stars with explanation]
|
|
- **Critical Issues**: [Count and brief description]
|
|
- **Security Score**: [Rating with key findings]
|
|
- **Performance Score**: [Rating with optimization opportunities]
|
|
- **Maintainability Score**: [Rating with improvement suggestions]
|
|
|
|
## Detailed Findings
|
|
|
|
### Security Analysis
|
|
#### Critical Issues
|
|
- [List of critical security vulnerabilities]
|
|
|
|
#### Recommendations
|
|
- [Specific security improvements with code examples]
|
|
|
|
### Performance Analysis
|
|
#### Bottlenecks Identified
|
|
- [Performance issues with impact assessment]
|
|
|
|
#### Optimization Opportunities
|
|
- [Specific performance improvements with expected impact]
|
|
|
|
### Code Quality Assessment
|
|
#### Strengths
|
|
- [Positive aspects of the codebase]
|
|
|
|
#### Areas for Improvement
|
|
- [Specific code quality issues with solutions]
|
|
|
|
### Cross-Platform Consistency
|
|
#### Integration Issues
|
|
- [Cross-platform compatibility concerns]
|
|
|
|
#### Standardization Opportunities
|
|
- [Suggestions for improved consistency]
|
|
|
|
## Action Items
|
|
### High Priority (Must Fix)
|
|
- [Critical issues requiring immediate attention]
|
|
|
|
### Medium Priority (Should Fix)
|
|
- [Important improvements for next iteration]
|
|
|
|
### Low Priority (Nice to Have)
|
|
- [Optimization opportunities for future consideration]
|
|
|
|
## Learning Opportunities
|
|
- [Educational resources and best practices]
|
|
- [Training recommendations for development team]
|
|
|
|
## Follow-up Recommendations
|
|
- [Suggested next steps and timeline]
|
|
- [Additional reviews or assessments needed]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Quick Review Format
|
|
\```markdown
|
|
## Quick Review: [Component/File Name]
|
|
|
|
** Focus Areas Reviewed:**
|
|
- Security, Performance, Code Quality, Best Practices
|
|
|
|
** Strengths:**
|
|
- [Positive aspects with specific examples]
|
|
|
|
** Issues Found:**
|
|
- **Critical**: [Security vulnerabilities, major performance issues]
|
|
- **Important**: [Code quality concerns, minor performance issues]
|
|
- **Suggestions**: [Optimization opportunities, best practices]
|
|
|
|
** Immediate Actions:**
|
|
1. [Most critical fix with code example]
|
|
2. [Second priority fix with explanation]
|
|
3. [Third priority improvement]
|
|
|
|
** Learning Resources:**
|
|
- [Relevant documentation, tutorials, or best practices]
|
|
|
|
** Estimated Fix Time:** [Time estimate for addressing issues]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Quality Validation
|
|
|
|
### Review Completeness Checklist
|
|
- [ ] All specified files and modules reviewed
|
|
- [ ] Security vulnerabilities identified and assessed
|
|
- [ ] Performance bottlenecks analyzed
|
|
- [ ] Code quality standards validated
|
|
- [ ] Cross-platform consistency checked
|
|
- [ ] Best practices compliance verified
|
|
- [ ] Actionable recommendations provided
|
|
- [ ] Learning opportunities identified
|
|
|
|
### Success Metrics
|
|
- **Review Coverage**: Percentage of codebase analyzed
|
|
- **Issue Detection Rate**: Number of valid issues identified
|
|
- **False Positive Rate**: Accuracy of issue identification
|
|
- **Developer Satisfaction**: Feedback on review quality and helpfulness
|
|
- **Code Improvement**: Measurable quality improvements post-review
|
|
|
|
## Integration Points
|
|
|
|
### BMAD Persona Collaboration
|
|
- **Technical Documentation Architect**: Code documentation quality validation
|
|
- **DevOps Documentation Specialist**: Infrastructure and deployment code review
|
|
- **Cross-Platform Integration Specialist**: Integration pattern validation
|
|
- **Development Teams**: Collaborative improvement process
|
|
|
|
### Tool Integration
|
|
- **Version Control**: Git hooks and pull request integration
|
|
- **CI/CD Pipeline**: Automated review triggers and quality gates
|
|
- **Issue Tracking**: Integration with Jira, GitHub Issues, or similar
|
|
- **Communication**: Slack, Teams, or email notifications
|
|
|
|
## Continuous Improvement
|
|
- Regular review of review quality and effectiveness
|
|
- Updates to review criteria based on project evolution
|
|
- Integration of new tools and techniques
|
|
- Feedback incorporation for process improvement
|