Test new prompt for code reviews

[esezen]

No description provided.

[constructor-claude-bedrock]

Code Review: Test new prompt for code reviews

Files Reviewed: 1 file, +406/-112 lines

P1 Critical Issues (0 found)

No critical issues identified.

P2 Important Issues (0 found)

No important issues identified.

P3 Suggestions (4 found)

Documentation Clarity

• .claude/commands/review.md:21-29 - The bash command examples in "Step 1: Identify Changes" could benefit from clarification about which branch of the conditional logic to follow. Consider adding a brief explanation that these are alternative approaches depending on whether a PR number or branch name is provided.

Process Refinement

• .claude/commands/review.md:349-387 - The output format template includes placeholder text like [Branch/PR Name] and [Issue Title]. While this is clear for human readers, it might be helpful to add a note indicating these are placeholders to be replaced with actual values.

Consistency Check

• .claude/commands/review.md:78-81 - "Catch Block Analysis" mentions checking for generic catch(e), but many modern codebases use catch (error) or similar short names intentionally. Consider clarifying this should flag truly uninformative catch blocks that don't use the error at all, rather than just short variable names.

Checklist Organization

• .claude/commands/review.md:428-454 - The "Quick Reference Checklist" is excellent, but it duplicates some items from the detailed sections above. Consider adding a note that this is a subset for rapid reviews, to avoid confusion about whether all checklists need to be followed every time.

Strengths

This is an excellent enhancement to the code review process. The new structure is comprehensive, well-organized, and follows industry best practices. Key improvements include: (1) Clear severity categorization (P1/P2/P3) that helps prioritize issues, (2) Detailed checklists across multiple quality dimensions including security (OWASP Top 10), performance, architecture, and error handling, (3) Explicit output format that ensures consistent, actionable feedback, (4) Helpful guidance on when to use confidence indicators and how to prioritize reviews, and (5) A quick reference checklist for rapid reviews. The document strikes a good balance between being thorough and remaining practical for daily use.

---

Overall Assessment: APPROVED

This change significantly improves the code review process with comprehensive guidelines while maintaining clarity and usability. The suggestions above are minor enhancements that don't block merging this valuable improvement.

[Alexey-Pavlov]

Thank you!
I tested it on some PLP PRs, and it works well! Left some minor comments

[Alexey-Pavlov]

Do we really want to drop these rules? At least regarding TODOs, README impact, and package-lock.json, they seem relevant 🤔.

We still have the Code Quality section in the new version, so maybe we could add something like Project Hygiene: to Section 2.6 "Code Quality" and include these checks there.

[Alexey-Pavlov]

Are these checklist items relevant for this project, or will this review.md be shared later and we want to keep it?

[Alexey-Pavlov]

Maybe we can keep it, but add something about skipping these checks for non-applicable apps