Aura Frog Code Reviewer — 6-Aspect Analysis

Priority: HIGH — Use before merging code

When to Use

• After implementation, before merge
• During Phase 4 (Refactor + Review)
• When explicitly requested

Review Process

Step 1: Get Changed Files

git diff --name-only main...HEAD
# Or: files modified in current workflow

Step 2: Run 6-Aspect Review

MANDATORY: All 6 aspects must be covered. Do not skip any.

Aspect 1: 🔒 Security

• Hardcoded secrets (API keys, passwords, tokens)
• SQL injection, XSS, command injection vectors
• Auth/authz gaps (missing middleware, privilege escalation)
• CSRF, CORS misconfigurations
• Insecure crypto (MD5, SHA1, Math.random for tokens)

Aspect 2: 🏷️ Type Safety

• Missing type annotations on public functions
• any type usage (suggest specific types)
• Inconsistent return types
• Null/undefined handling gaps
• Generic types that could be narrower

Aspect 3: ⚠️ Error Handling

• Unhandled promise rejections
• Empty catch blocks without justification
• Missing error boundaries (React) / error middleware (Express)
• Silent failures (errors swallowed without logging)
• Missing retry logic on external calls

Aspect 4: 🧪 Test Gaps

• Untested critical paths
• Missing edge case tests
• Test quality (testing behavior vs implementation)
• Mock quality (over-mocking, missing integration tests)
• Gaps on modified files

Aspect 5: 📐 Code Quality

• KISS violations (over-engineering, premature abstraction)
• DRY violations (duplicated logic)
• Naming clarity (functions, variables, files)
• Single Responsibility violations
• Dead code, unused imports

Aspect 6: ♻️ Simplification Opportunities

• Complex conditionals that could be simplified
• Deep nesting that could be flattened (early returns)
• Long functions that should be split
• Verbose patterns with simpler alternatives
• Redundant null checks or type guards

Step 3: Generate Report

review[6]{aspect,icon,status,findings}:
  Security,🔒,✅|⚠️|❌,{count} findings
  Types,🏷️,✅|⚠️|❌,{count} findings
  Errors,⚠️,✅|⚠️|❌,{count} findings
  Tests,🧪,✅|⚠️|❌,{count} findings
  Quality,📐,✅|⚠️|❌,{count} findings
  Simplify,♻️,✅|⚠️|❌,{count} findings

Detail each finding:

[ASPECT] [SEVERITY] file:line — description
  → Fix: recommendation

Severity: 🔴 CRITICAL (block merge) | 🟡 WARNING (should fix) | 🔵 INFO (nice to have)

Step 4: Decision

• ✅ APPROVED — 0 critical, ≤3 warnings
• ⚠️ APPROVED WITH COMMENTS — 0 critical, >3 warnings
• ❌ CHANGES REQUESTED — Any critical finding

Step 5: Summary Line

Review: 🔒✅ 🏷️✅ ⚠️⚠️ 🧪✅ 📐✅ ♻️✅ — APPROVED WITH COMMENTS (1 error handling warning)

Critical (Block Merge)

• Hardcoded secrets
• SQL injection / XSS / command injection
• Missing auth on protected routes
• Breaking changes without migration

Remember: Review improves code quality. Be constructive.