Code Quality Review Templates

This document provides standardized templates for conducting effective code reviews. Using consistent review templates helps teams maintain high code quality standards, improves reviewer efficiency, and ensures comprehensive coverage of important aspects.

Pull Request Template

## Description
<!-- Provide a brief description of the changes in this PR -->

## Type of Change
<!-- Mark the appropriate option with an [x] -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
- [ ] Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
- [ ] Documentation update
- [ ] Performance improvement
- [ ] Other (please describe):

## What is the current behavior?
<!-- Please describe the current behavior that you are modifying, or link to a relevant issue. -->

## What is the new behavior?
<!-- Please describe the behavior or changes that are being added by this PR. -->

## Checklist:
<!-- Mark completed items with an [x] -->
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] Any dependent changes have been merged and published

Comprehensive Code Review Checklist

## Code Quality Review

### Reviewer: [Name]
### Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
### PR/Code Reference: [#123]

## General
- [ ] Code is easy to understand and follows project conventions
- [ ] No unnecessary code comments (code should be self-explanatory)
- [ ] Follows DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principles
- [ ] Complex logic is well-documented with comments explaining "why" not "what"
- [ ] No commented-out code or debugging artifacts

## Architecture & Design
- [ ] Follows established architecture patterns
- [ ] Proper separation of concerns
- [ ] Adheres to SOLID principles
- [ ] Appropriately handles errors and edge cases
- [ ] Uses appropriate design patterns
- [ ] No unnecessary dependencies introduced

## Performance
- [ ] Efficient algorithms and data structures used
- [ ] No excessive memory usage
- [ ] No N+1 query issues
- [ ] Appropriate caching strategies implemented
- [ ] Optimized for expected data scale

## Security
- [ ] Input validation implemented
- [ ] No security vulnerabilities introduced
- [ ] Proper authentication and authorization checks
- [ ] No sensitive data exposure
- [ ] Secure data handling practices followed

## Testing
- [ ] Sufficient test coverage for new code/changes
- [ ] Tests cover edge cases and error scenarios
- [ ] Tests are robust (not flaky)
- [ ] Test organization makes sense
- [ ] Unit tests run quickly

## Documentation
- [ ] Inline documentation is clear and comprehensive
- [ ] API documentation is updated
- [ ] README/user documentation updated if needed
- [ ] Change log updated (if applicable)

## Feedback Summary
**Strengths:**
<!-- List aspects of the code that are particularly well done -->

**Concerns:**
<!-- List any concerns that should be addressed -->

**Suggestions:**
<!-- Provide constructive suggestions for improvement -->

Security-Focused Review Template

# Security Code Review

## Code Information
- Repository: [repo name]
- Pull Request: [PR #]
- Developer: [name]
- Reviewer: [name]
- Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

## Authentication & Authorization
- [ ] Proper authentication checks implemented
- [ ] Authorization verified for all actions
- [ ] Session management implemented securely
- [ ] Multi-factor authentication considered (if applicable)
- [ ] Privilege escalation risks addressed

## Input Validation
- [ ] All user inputs are validated
- [ ] Input validation occurs on server-side
- [ ] Strong type checking implemented
- [ ] Input sanitization for special characters
- [ ] Proper handling of unexpected input values

## Output Encoding
- [ ] Output is properly encoded to prevent XSS
- [ ] Content-Type headers with charset properly set
- [ ] No sensitive data in error messages or logs
- [ ] HTML sanitization for user-generated content

## Data Protection
- [ ] Sensitive data properly encrypted
- [ ] No hardcoded credentials or secrets
- [ ] Secure key management practices
- [ ] Proper use of encryption algorithms
- [ ] PII handling complies with regulations

## Query Safety
- [ ] Parameterized queries used to prevent injection
- [ ] ORM used correctly to prevent SQL injection
- [ ] NoSQL injection risks addressed
- [ ] Database permissions follow least privilege principle

## Dependencies
- [ ] No known vulnerabilities in dependencies
- [ ] Dependencies up to date
- [ ] Unnecessary dependencies removed
- [ ] Dependencies from trusted sources only

## Other Vulnerabilities
- [ ] CSRF protections implemented
- [ ] No server-side request forgery possibilities
- [ ] Secure file upload handling (if applicable)
- [ ] Race conditions considered and prevented
- [ ] Security headers properly configured

## Summary
[Overall security assessment and recommendations]

Performance Review Template

# Performance Code Review

## Review Information
- Code/PR Reference: [#123]
- Reviewer: [Name]
- Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

## Algorithm Efficiency
- [ ] Time complexity is appropriate for the expected data size
- [ ] Space complexity is minimized
- [ ] Avoids unnecessary computations or iterations
- [ ] Uses appropriate data structures for operations
- [ ] Batch processing used where appropriate

## Database Operations
- [ ] Queries are optimized and use proper indexes
- [ ] No N+1 query problems
- [ ] Efficient joins and relationship traversals
- [ ] Pagination implemented for large result sets
- [ ] Connection pooling used appropriately

## Resource Management
- [ ] Resources (files, connections, etc.) properly closed
- [ ] Memory usage optimized
- [ ] No memory leaks identified
- [ ] Thread/async resource management appropriate
- [ ] CPU-intensive operations handled efficiently

## Caching Strategy
- [ ] Appropriate use of caching
- [ ] Cache invalidation strategy is clear
- [ ] Cache hit ratios are measurable
- [ ] Cold start performance considered
- [ ] Distributed caching implemented if needed

## Front-End Performance (if applicable)
- [ ] Minimized DOM manipulations
- [ ] Efficient rendering approach
- [ ] Assets optimized (images, scripts, etc.)
- [ ] Bundle size optimized
- [ ] Lazy loading implemented where appropriate

## Bottleneck Analysis
- [ ] Identified potential bottlenecks
- [ ] Load testing considerations
- [ ] Scalability concerns addressed
- [ ] Backup/failover strategies in place
- [ ] Performance monitoring hooks added

## Recommendations
[Specific recommendations for performance improvements]

## Measurement
[How performance improvements should be measured]

Technical Debt Review Template

# Technical Debt Review

## Review Information
- Code/Project Area: [Specify area]
- Reviewer: [Name]
- Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

## Debt Classification
- [ ] Code quality issues
- [ ] Architectural issues
- [ ] Documentation gaps
- [ ] Testing gaps
- [ ] Dependency issues
- [ ] Performance issues
- [ ] Security issues
- [ ] Scalability concerns
- [ ] Other: [Specify]

## Issue Details

### Description
[Detailed description of the technical debt identified]

### Impact Assessment
- Business Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
- Development Velocity Impact: [High/Medium/Low]
- Maintenance Burden: [High/Medium/Low]
- Risk Level: [High/Medium/Low]

### Root Causes
- [ ] Time constraints during initial development
- [ ] Changing requirements
- [ ] Knowledge gaps
- [ ] Historical decisions that no longer fit
- [ ] Evolving best practices
- [ ] Other: [Specify]

## Remediation Plan

### Proposed Solution
[Description of how to address this technical debt]

### Estimated Effort
- Estimated time to fix: [Hours/Days/Weeks]
- Required skills: [List skills needed]
- Potential blockers: [List any blockers]

### Priority Recommendation
- [ ] Critical (fix immediately)
- [ ] High (fix in next sprint)
- [ ] Medium (fix within quarter)
- [ ] Low (fix when convenient)
- [ ] Monitor (no immediate action, watch for changes)

### Expected Benefits
[List the benefits of addressing this debt]

## Follow-up
- Next review date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
- Metrics to track: [List metrics to verify improvement]

Code Review Response Template

# Code Review Response

## Responding to: [PR/Review Reference]
## Responder: [Name]
## Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

## Addressing Feedback

### Item 1: [Brief description of feedback point]
- [x] Addressed
- [ ] Partially addressed
- [ ] Not addressed

**Response:**
[Explanation of changes made or reasons for not making changes]

### Item 2: [Brief description of feedback point]
- [x] Addressed
- [ ] Partially addressed
- [ ] Not addressed

**Response:**
[Explanation of changes made or reasons for not making changes]

## Questions for Reviewer

1. [Question about feedback or implementation]
2. [Question about feedback or implementation]

## Additional Changes

[Description of any additional changes made beyond what was requested in the review]

## Next Steps

[Proposed next steps in the review process]

Related Resources

• Code Quality Best Practices
• Code Quality Implementation Guide
• Code Quality Adoption Strategy
• Code Quality Troubleshooting Guide