Aos codereview

/aos-codereview

Select the changed files (or paste a diff), then run /aos-codereview.

For targeted reviews: /aos-codereview security · /aos-codereview breaking · /aos-codereview tests · /aos-codereview perf

For a deeper security audit, follow up with /aos-audit.

---

What gets checked

Correctness

• All branches handled — no missing else, no unhandled null / undefined
• Off-by-one errors in loops, slices, and pagination
• Async operations properly awaited — no floating promises
• Errors not silently swallowed in catch blocks
• Boundary conditions: 0, 1, max, empty string, empty array, invalid inputs
• Concurrency risks: race conditions, duplicate submissions, non-atomic read-modify-write

Readability

• Function names are accurate — getUser only gets, does not also mutate
• Functions fit on a screen — if scrolling is needed, split it
• Comments explain why, not what — no "increment counter by 1"
• No dead code, commented-out blocks, or leftover development TODOs
• No unexplained abbreviations — spell out usr, mgr, tmp, d
• Style consistent with the surrounding codebase

Breaking changes

• Public API changes are backward-compatible or have a documented migration path
• Database schema changes include a migration — columns not dropped without deprecation phase
• New required environment variables documented in .env.example
• Config format changes handle the previous format gracefully
• Consumers of shared libraries or modules notified if the interface changes

Dependencies

• New packages are actively maintained (last release < 12 months)
• New packages don't duplicate functionality already in the project
• Licence of new packages is compatible with the project (no GPL in a proprietary codebase)
• npm audit / pip audit shows no new HIGH or CRITICAL vulnerabilities
• Lock file updated and committed

Security (quick scan — use /aos-audit for a full audit)

• No SQL string concatenation — parameterised queries only
• No new secrets in source code
• User input not passed to eval, exec, shell commands, or file paths without sanitisation
• New endpoints have auth guards unless explicitly public
• Sensitive data not written to logs

Performance

• No new N+1 query patterns introduced
• New collections are paginated — no unbounded list endpoints
• No synchronous I/O in async request handlers
• Cache invalidated where relevant when underlying data changes

Testing

• New behaviour has new tests — no uncovered code paths
• Existing tests still pass — the diff does not break them
• Tests are meaningful — not just asserting a function was called
• Tests cover the error paths introduced in this change

Review etiquette

• Comments are kind, specific, and actionable
• Blocking issues labelled [BLOCK], non-blocking changes labelled [REQUEST], minor points labelled nit:
• Positive patterns called out — praise reinforces good decisions
• All comments batched in one review pass — not drip-fed across days

---

Output format

[BLOCK] Correctness — floating promise in payment handler
File: src/payments/payment.controller.ts:52
Issue: processRefund() called without await — errors silently lost, caller returns before work completes
Fix: await this.paymentService.processRefund(id)

[BLOCK] Security — new admin endpoint missing auth guard
File: src/admin/admin.controller.ts:18
Issue: DELETE /admin/users/:id has no @UseGuards — any unauthenticated request can delete users
Fix: add @UseGuards(JwtAuthGuard, AdminGuard)

[REQUEST] Testing — no test for the new >$500 discount edge case
File: src/orders/order.service.ts:89
Fix: add: it('should apply 20% discount when order total exceeds $500')

[REQUEST] Dependencies — lodash added but only _.get() is used
Fix: replace with optional chaining (user?.address?.city) and remove the dependency

nit: variable 'tmp' on line 34 — consider renaming to 'activeUserReport'

DECISION: REQUEST CHANGES — 2 blocks · 1 request · 1 nit

---

Comment severity guide

Label	Meaning	Must fix before merge?
[BLOCK]	Correctness bug, security issue, or breaking change without migration	Yes
[REQUEST]	Missing test, unclear code, or improvable design — important but not blocking	Author's call
nit:	Minor naming, formatting, or style point	No
[praise]	Pattern worth calling out positively	No action

---

Full reference

See REFERENCE.md for correctness patterns, breaking-change handling, and comment examples.