add automated code review command #139
Conversation
Add /git:review-changes command that provides AI-powered code review analysis for git changes. Features include security vulnerability detection, performance analysis, and PR-ready formatting. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Note
|
| Cohort / File(s) | Summary |
|---|---|
Plugin Index PLUGINS.md |
Added /git:review-changes command entry with options `[--staged |
Command Metadata docs/data.json |
Inserted new public command review-changes under the git plugin with name, description, synopsis, and argument hint. |
Command Specification plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md |
New, comprehensive command documentation covering synopsis, modes (working tree / staged / last N commits), multi-perspective analyses (security, performance, quality, tests), output formats (terminal and PR-ready markdown), examples, flags, and return-schema examples. |
Sequence Diagram(s)
sequenceDiagram
actor User
participant CLI as git:review-changes
participant Detector as Change Detector
participant Analyzer as Multi-Perspective Analyzer
participant Reporter as Report Generator
User->>CLI: Invoke /git:review-changes [--staged|--pr-ready|--commits N]
CLI->>Detector: Resolve target changes (working tree / staged / commits N)
Detector-->>CLI: Return file list & diffs
CLI->>Analyzer: Request analyses (security, performance, quality, tests)
par Parallel analyses
Analyzer->>Analyzer: Security checks
Analyzer->>Analyzer: Performance checks
Analyzer->>Analyzer: Code quality checks
Analyzer->>Analyzer: Test/coverage checks
end
Analyzer-->>CLI: Aggregated findings
CLI->>Reporter: Format output (terminal or PR-ready markdown)
Reporter-->>User: Structured review (summary, issues, recommendations, checklist)
Estimated code review effort
🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes
- Pay extra attention to:
docs/data.jsonentry structure and conformance to the plugin registry schema.- Accuracy and consistency of flags, synopsis, and examples in
plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md. - Clarity and correctness of the documented return schema and sample outputs.
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches
✅ Passed checks (7 passed)
| Check name | Status | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Description Check | ✅ Passed | Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled. |
| Title check | ✅ Passed | The title 'add automated code review command' directly summarizes the main change: adding a new /git:review-changes command for automated code review analysis. |
| Docstring Coverage | ✅ Passed | No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. |
| No Real People Names In Style References | ✅ Passed | PR documentation does not reference real people's names as style references; uses explicit quality descriptions instead. |
| No Assumed Git Remote Names | ✅ Passed | Comprehensive search across all modified files found no hardcoded git remote names like 'origin' or 'upstream'. |
| Git Push Safety Rules | ✅ Passed | The new git:review-changes command is a read-only code analysis tool that performs no git push operations. |
| No Untrusted Mcp Servers | ✅ Passed | PR only adds documentation and metadata for a new git review-changes command with no MCP server installations or untrusted dependencies. |
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
- Create PR with unit tests
- Post copyable unit tests in a comment
📜 Recent review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md (1)
10-10: Fix markdown linting violations: code block language tags and step headers.The markdown linter (markdownlint) flags three issues:
- Lines 10, 103 (MD040): Fenced code blocks should specify a language
- Lines 37, 71, 78 (MD036): Step headers use emphasis (
**text**) instead of proper markdown headingsApply these fixes:
+```bash
/git:review-changes # Review current working directory changes
/git:review-changes --staged # Review staged changes only
/git:review-changes --pr-ready # Generate PR-ready review summary
/git:review-changes --commits N # Review last N commits-**Step 1: Change Detection** +### Step 1: Change Detection -**Step 2: Multi-Perspective Analysis** +### Step 2: Multi-Perspective Analysis -**Step 3: Generate Structured Report** +### Step 3: Generate Structured Report -**Step 4: Format Output** +### Step 4: Format Output+```json
🔍 Code Review AnalysisAlso applies to: 37-82, 103-103 </blockquote></details> </blockquote></details> <details> <summary>📜 Review details</summary> **Configuration used**: Path: .coderabbit.yaml **Review profile**: CHILL **Plan**: Pro **Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting** **Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting** <details> <summary>📥 Commits</summary> Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between bdd655f2b142b0c039820e9debc33c9aeec12bd2 and 723c7a133a78c6a48dbe32c2c3a15980fb2dda09. </details> <details> <summary>📒 Files selected for processing (3)</summary> * `PLUGINS.md` (1 hunks) * `docs/data.json` (1 hunks) * `plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md` (1 hunks) </details> <details> <summary>🧰 Additional context used</summary> <details> <summary>🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)</summary> <details> <summary>plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md</summary> 10-10: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified (MD040, fenced-code-language) --- 37-37: Emphasis used instead of a heading (MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading) --- 71-71: Emphasis used instead of a heading (MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading) --- 78-78: Emphasis used instead of a heading (MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading) --- 103-103: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified (MD040, fenced-code-language) </details> </details> </details> <details> <summary>🔇 Additional comments (6)</summary><blockquote> <details> <summary>PLUGINS.md (1)</summary><blockquote> `73-73`: **Well-integrated command documentation addition.** The new command entry is properly positioned, follows the established format, and is consistent with the metadata and detailed documentation provided elsewhere. </blockquote></details> <details> <summary>docs/data.json (1)</summary><blockquote> `34-39`: **Consistent metadata structure.** The command metadata is properly structured with all required fields, correctly positioned in alphabetical order, and values align with documentation across other files. </blockquote></details> <details> <summary>plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md (4)</summary><blockquote> `1-32`: **Well-articulated command overview.** The frontmatter, description, features, and use cases are clearly presented and provide good context for users. --- `83-98`: **Clear and comprehensive usage examples.** The examples effectively demonstrate all major command modes and are well-commented for user understanding. --- `100-170`: **Comprehensive and well-structured output examples.** The return value section effectively demonstrates both output formats with realistic examples, showing security findings, performance concerns, recommendations, and test plans. --- `172-217`: **Thorough documentation of security, language support, and integration.** The security guidelines appropriately emphasize defensive practices without exposing sensitive information. Language-specific reviews demonstrate tool versatility, and the See Also section helps users discover related workflows. </blockquote></details> </blockquote></details> </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit for review status -->
…analysis │ │ │ │ - Add repository convention checks (AGENTS.md, CONTRIBUTING.md compliance) │ │ - Expand performance analysis beyond web/TypeScript focus │ │ - Add distributed systems, microservices, and database-specific reviews │ │ - Include additional language support (Rust, improved Go/Python) │ │ - Ensure context-aware analysis for different system architectures
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)
plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md
10-10: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
37-37: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
79-79: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
86-86: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
111-111: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md (2)
33-90: Strong incorporation of prior feedback on AGENTS.md conventions.The Implementation section now explicitly includes a "Repository Conventions Review" (lines 48-52) that checks for AGENTS.md adherence, plugin structure, and ethical guidelines. This directly addresses the previous reviewer's concern about applying repository conventions. The addition of context-aware analysis for distributed systems (lines 196-201) also demonstrates thoughtful consideration of systems beyond web/TypeScript contexts.
1-245: Comprehensive and well-structured documentation with strong security/quality focus.The documentation effectively describes a multi-faceted code review command with language-specific analysis, security vulnerability detection, performance optimization guidance, and distributed systems awareness. The Return Value examples clearly illustrate both standard and PR-ready output formats, making the feature's utility evident. The Arguments section is concise and the See Also references provide good cross-navigation.
…o-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)
plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md
10-10: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
37-37: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
79-79: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
86-86: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
111-111: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md (2)
33-55: Excellent documentation addressing prior feedback on AGENTS.md conventions and non-determinism concerns.The revised documentation thoughtfully incorporates feedback from previous reviews:
- Explicit reference to AGENTS.md adherence is now integrated into the Repository Conventions Review section (lines 48-52) and reiterated in Language-Specific Reviews (line 252), directly addressing the concern about convention compliance.
- The new Important Limitations section (lines 180-198) transparently communicates the non-deterministic nature of AI analysis and provides clear guidance on when and how to use this tool, mitigating concerns raised about evals consistency and regression risks. The recommended usage pattern appropriately emphasizes human oversight and positions this as a supplementary interactive tool rather than an automated enforcement mechanism.
The documentation strike an excellent balance between showcasing the command's capabilities and setting clear expectations about its limitations.
Also applies to: 180-198
208-255: Strong context-aware analysis coverage with domain-specific guidance.The Context-Aware Analysis section thoughtfully covers multiple architectural paradigms (web/frontend, distributed systems, databases) and language-specific considerations. This addresses the earlier concern about whether the command would be "too web/typescript forward" by explicitly accommodating different system types and programming languages. The inclusion of distributed systems considerations (CAP theorem, eventual consistency, network partitions, circuit breakers) demonstrates domain awareness beyond simple web patterns.
│ │ │ - Add bash language specifier │ │ - Add text language specifier to Return Value code block ││ - Convert step headings from bold emphasis to proper markdown headings │ │ - Add repository conventions section and context-aware analysis ││ - Include Important Limitations section addressing AI non-determinism
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: SachinNinganure The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docs/data.json(1 hunks)
- Remove bash language specifier from Synopsis to fix parser - Regenerate docs/data.json with correct synopsis format - All claudelint checks now pass
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/data.json(1 hunks)plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- docs/data.json
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)
plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md
10-10: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
plugins/git/commands/review-changes.md (4)
33-89: Excellent implementation documentation addressing previous feedback.The Implementation section comprehensively addresses previous reviewer concerns:
- Incorporates AGENTS.md convention checks (requested in past review on line 33)
- Provides context-aware analysis across different domains (web, distributed systems, databases, languages)
- Clear step-by-step breakdown of the analysis workflow
The multi-perspective analysis approach is well-structured and practical.
180-198: Important Limitations section excellently addresses non-determinism concerns from previous review.This section directly responds to theobarberbany's valid concern about "evals" problems (run-to-run consistency and prompt sensitivity). The documentation:
- Explicitly acknowledges non-deterministic behavior
- Calls out that AGENTS.md changes can alter analysis
- Recommends interactive pre-commit use over automated CI gates
- Appropriately manages expectations about where this tool fits in the development workflow
This is a thoughtful addition that shows the author took feedback seriously.
200-254: Comprehensive security and context-aware guidance.The security guidelines are sound (generic warnings without exposing secrets), and the context-aware analysis section demonstrates strong domain coverage:
- Distributed systems guidance includes CAP theorem considerations and partition resilience
- Language-specific reviews are accurate and practical
- Coverage extends from frontend optimization to database ACID properties to microservice patterns
This breadth shows the command can adapt to diverse codebases while maintaining consistent review rigor.
256-265: Clear argument documentation and appropriate references.Arguments are well-documented with descriptions of what each flag does. The See Also section provides useful cross-references to related commands. Documentation is accessible and complete.
|
can I get some lgtms if good please |
|
@dgoodwin would you please take a look |
|
what is the process to get this merged |
3 participants
AI-powered code review analysis for git changes. Features include security vulnerability detection, performance analysis, and PR-ready formatting.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation