Fastapi self review

Review the change you just made before you call it complete. This is the gate between "I wrote code" and "it's done" — run it on your own diff and fix what it surfaces, don't just report.

Step 1: Get the diff

Look at exactly what changed — git diff (unstaged), git diff --cached (staged), and untracked files. Read the full changed files, not only the hunks; a problem often lives in the context around an edit.

Step 2: Walk the checklist

Go through every item against the diff. For each, either confirm it holds or fix it now.

Reuse before reinvention

• Does this add a function, helper, type, or constant that already exists somewhere in the repo? Search first, then reuse it instead.
• Is any logic duplicated from another module? Call the existing code, don't copy it.

Built-ins and existing dependencies

• Did you hand-roll something the standard library or an already-installed dependency provides (deep-clone, debounce, grouping, UUID, HTTP, parsing, date math)? Replace it with the built-in.
• Did you add a new third-party dependency? That's a decision to raise with the user, not to slip in — flag it.

Comments

• Deleting is the default; keeping one needs a reason you could defend in review. Go comment by comment and cut every one that restates the code, narrates steps, or reads as changelog ("Now we handle…", "Added to fix…").
• What survives gets one sentence, and only where it earns its place: a why, a gotcha, an invariant, a link. A second sentence usually means the first one restated the code.
• Prefer a clearer name over a comment.

Imports

• Did you import inside a function or method? Hoist it to the top of the file. It reads as an agent tell — the import got written where the need surfaced, not where it belongs — and it hides a module's dependencies from anyone scanning the file.
• Keep it local only when it earns it: breaking an import cycle, or deferring an optional/expensive dependency. Say which, in a # noqa comment on the line.

Dead code and leftovers

• No commented-out code, no unused variables/imports/functions, no debug prints or console.log/dbg! scaffolding, no stray TODO/FIXME without a reference.

Tests

• New behavior has tests (happy path + error/edge paths). A bug fix has a test that fails without the fix. Run the suite from CLAUDE.md and confirm it's green.

Scope and minimalism

• Every changed line serves the task. No unrelated refactoring, renaming, or reformatting rode along. Revert what isn't yours to change.

Conventions and correctness

• Matches the repo's existing patterns, naming, and structure (and any .claude/rules/*.md covering the touched files).
• Errors are surfaced, not swallowed — no empty catches, no fallback values that hide a failure.

Step 3: Report the verdict

State plainly: what you fixed on this pass, and confirm the checklist now holds (or name any item you consciously left and why). If nothing needed fixing, say so — a clean pass is a valid result, not a reason to invent changes.

Rules

• Fix, don't just flag — this runs on your own work, so finish the job.
• Do NOT expand scope while reviewing: this pass tightens the existing change, it doesn't add features.
• Be honest. The point is to catch your own misses before a human does, not to rubber-stamp.

When NOT to use

• There's no uncommitted change to review — nothing to do.
• The user wants a review of someone else's PR or branch — use the review skill (it's built for that, with severity levels and validation).
• The change is a pure docs/prose edit with no code — the humanize skill fits better.