critical-review
Critical and uncompromising review of work done
Installation
Follow the repository instructions for this skill and your agent. Review the files and dependencies before adding it to your workflow.
View source ↗GuidesSkill instructions
Skill: Critical Review
When to use this skill
- After every implementation - Validate work quality
- Before a significant commit - Ensure no technical debt is introduced
- Before a release - Full audit of modified code
- When in doubt - Objectively evaluate an approach
Available templates
| Template | Usage |
|---|---|
templates/quick_checklist.md |
Quick validation checklist |
templates/review_report.md |
Detailed review report |
Critical posture
Fundamental rule: Never accept mediocre code. Be your own harshest critic.
Questions to ask SYSTEMATICALLY
1. Code quality
- Is the code readable by another developer without explanation?
- Is there duplicate code that could be factored?
- Are variable/function names explicit?
- Is cyclomatic complexity reasonable?
- Do functions do one thing only (SRP)?
2. Error handling
- Are all error cases handled properly?
- Are there hidden
.unwrap()? - Are error messages informative?
- Are errors propagated correctly?
3. Tests
- Do tests cover nominal AND edge cases?
- Are tests independent from each other?
- Do tests document expected behavior?
- Would tests fail if the code was broken?
4. Architecture
- Does the code respect DDD architecture?
- Are there dependencies in the wrong direction (domain → infrastructure)?
- Is coupling minimal between modules?
- Is the code easily testable?
5. Performance
- Are there unnecessary allocations in hot paths?
- Are data structures appropriate?
- Are there blocking operations in async code?
Evaluation grid
After each implementation, self-evaluate honestly:
| Criterion | Score | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Readability | 1-5 | Does the code read like prose? |
| Robustness | 1-5 | Does it handle all edge cases? |
| Testability | 1-5 | Are tests complete and relevant? |
| Maintainability | 1-5 | Could another dev modify it easily? |
| Performance | 1-5 | Is the code efficient? |
Minimum acceptable score: 3/5 on each criterion
Red flags to detect
Critical code smells
// ❌ RED FLAG: unwrap without context
let value = some_option.unwrap();
// ❌ RED FLAG: potential hidden panic
let index = vec[user_input];
// ❌ RED FLAG: f64 for money
let total: f64 = price * quantity;
// ❌ RED FLAG: excessive clone
for item in collection.clone() { ... }
// ❌ RED FLAG: function too long (>50 lines)
fn do_everything() { /* 200 lines */ }
// ❌ RED FLAG: comment explaining obscure code
// This does X because Y (code should be self-explanatory)
Architectural anti-patterns
| Anti-pattern | Symptom | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| God class | File >500 lines | Decompose into modules |
| Spaghetti | Circular dependencies | Invert dependencies |
| Anemic domain | Entities without behavior | Enrich domain model |
| Leaky abstraction | Implementation details exposed | Encapsulate correctly |
Critical review checklist
Before considering work as complete:
Mandatory
- No
.unwrap()in production - No
f64for monetary calculations - Tests pass and are relevant
- Clippy without warnings
- Documentation up to date
Recommended
- Review diff before commit
- Re-read after a break
- Manual test of happy path
Critical report format
After a review, document findings:
## Critical Review - [Feature/Module]
### Positive points
- ...
### Points to improve
- **P0 (blocking)**: ...
- **P1 (important)**: ...
- **P2 (desirable)**: ...
### Technical debt identified
- ...
### Score: X/5
Reference
For an in-depth analysis of the complete project, see:
.agent/CRITICAL_ANALYSIS_PROMPT.md
Examples
Read the usage examples in the source repository.
View source ↗Source history
- Indexed on
- 2026-01-20
- Index updated
- 2026-02-03
- Branch
- main
Index and sync dates describe this directory. View the source repository for code history.
GitHub ↗chat Comments (0)
Sign in to join the discussion and leave a comment.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!