---
name: five-axis-code-review
description: "Five-axis code review checklist (correctness, security, readability, performance, test coverage) producing actionable comments instead of style nitpicks. Use when the user asks to review code, a diff, or a pull request."
category: development
risk: safe
source: https://github.com/alapha888/agent-skills-en
source_repo: alapha888/agent-skills-en
source_type: community
date_added: "2026-10-01"
author: alapha888
tags: [code-review, code-quality, pull-requests]
tools: [claude, cursor, gemini, codex]
license: MIT
license_source: https://github.com/alapha888/agent-skills-en/blob/main/LICENSE
---

# Code Review Checklist

One review answers a single question: "Will this code become someone else's problem within three months?" Walk the five axes in order; each axis gets pass / fail / N-A, and every failure must come with a concrete fix.

## When to Use

- Use when the user asks to review code, a diff, or a pull request.
- Use when a review should stay actionable and skip style nitpicks.

## Workflow

1. **Check the scope first**: look at the diff size. For a large diff, divide review into coherent sections and inspect all required files; ask for a split when the change cannot be assessed coherently, rather than refusing by line count alone.
2. **Check axis by axis** (order = priority):
   - **Correctness**: edge cases (null, empty, zero, negative, oversized), concurrency/timing assumptions, error handling (are exceptions swallowed?). Correctness and security defects can both block a merge; actual repository policy and evidenced impact determine other blocking requirements.
   - **Security**: is user input concatenated into SQL / shell commands / HTML; are secrets or tokens hard-coded; does logging leak sensitive data.
   - **Readability**: do names say what things are; does each function do one thing; are magic numbers named. Flag only what you can't understand — not "I'd write it differently."
   - **Performance**: repeated queries or recomputation inside loops; N+1 problems; avoidable large-object copies. No data-free performance speculation ("this might get slow" is not a comment).
   - **Test coverage**: does new logic have tests; do edge cases have cases. All-green tests with the critical path uncovered still get sent back.
3. **Write the comments**: fixed format — `[axis] file:line problem → suggested fix`. Only actionable suggestions; "could be optimized" is not one.
4. **Triage**: `Must fix` (correctness / security) vs `Should fix` (readability / performance / tests). "Should fix" doesn't block the merge, but say so explicitly.

## Rules

- Prioritize and group related findings, but do not suppress evidenced defects to satisfy a numeric comment cap. Summarize systemic issues with representative locations and explicit remaining scope.
- No style policing: indentation, quotes, semicolons — that's the linter's job, not a human's.
- Speak with the diff: every comment must cite a concrete line of code. A comment without a code reference is invalid.

## Checklist (minimal executable version)

```markdown
## Code review checklist

- [ ] Correctness: edge cases (null/0/negative/oversized) handled, exceptions not swallowed
- [ ] Correctness: concurrency/timing assumptions hold, no races
- [ ] Security: no SQL/shell/HTML injection points, no hard-coded secrets, no sensitive data in logs
- [ ] Readability: names are descriptive, functions have a single responsibility, no magic numbers
- [ ] Performance: no repeated queries/computation in loops, no N+1, no evidence-free performance worries
- [ ] Tests: new logic is covered, edge cases have cases
- [ ] Scope: coherent review sections and all required files assessed; unresolved coverage is explicit
```

Example review comments:

```text
[Must fix][Correctness] order.py:87 empty order list triggers IndexError → guard for empty before taking [0]
[Should fix][Readability] order.py:92 magic number 86400 → name it SECONDS_PER_DAY
```

## Limitations

- Covers five review axes, not every quality dimension. Domain-specific correctness (financial rounding, protocol conformance, accessibility conformance) still needs its own specialist review.
- The five axes are heuristics for a human reviewer. A clean pass on the checklist does not prove the change is correct, secure, or performant.
- Security review here is a reading checklist, not a scanner. Static analysis, dependency audit and secret scanning run as separate tools.
- The skill reviews diffs; it cannot establish that requirements were met, and an empty findings list only means no finding was evidenced in the reviewed scope.

## Anti-patterns

- ❌ Drive-by LGTM: approving before reading the whole diff — the review is theater.
- ❌ Style police: 18 of 20 comments about quotes and line breaks while a null-pointer dereference slips through.
- ❌ Comments without code: "this logic looks off" — which logic? Which line? Unsaid means invalid.
- ❌ Performance speculation: "this loop might be slow at scale" — a performance comment without data is noise.
- ❌ Grading 50 items: when there are too many problems to list, the right move is "rewrite and resubmit", not playing teacher.