By name: code-review description: > MCP-powered multi-dimensional code review for .NET projects. Uses Roslyn analysis tools for antipatterns, diagnostics, references, and dependency graphs combined with structured manual review. Prioritizes effort with blast-radius scoring — data access, security, concurrency, and integration boundaries before style — and produces severity-categorized findings with actionable fixes. Use when: "review", "code review", "PR review", "review this", "review my code", "check code quality", "review changes", "what should I review", "review priorities", "blast radius", "critical path".
/code-review — MCP-Powered Code Review
What
Performs a multi-dimensional code review combining Roslyn MCP analysis with structured manual review. Effort follows the 80/20 rule: the 20% of code that causes 80% of incidents (data access, security, concurrency, integration boundaries) gets thorough review; style and formatting are left to tooling.
Review dimensions: Correctness (logic, edge cases, null handling, async pitfalls), Security (auth gaps, injection, secrets, CORS), Performance (N+1, allocations, missing cancellation), Architecture compliance (layer violations, boundary breaches), Test coverage (behavior tests for changed types).
When
- "Review this", "code review", "PR review", before merging a pull request
- After a major refactor to verify no regressions or design drift
- "What should I review?" — deciding where review effort goes on a large change
- Onboarding to unfamiliar code and wanting a quality assessment
How
Step 1: Scope and Score Blast Radius
Identify changed files (git diff main...HEAD, specified files, or module).
Score each change to set review depth — blast radius determines depth, not
line count. A one-line middleware change outranks a 300-line rename.
| Blast Radius | Examples | Depth |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Middleware, auth, DB migrations, shared kernel, CI/CD | Thorough — every code path |
| High | Public API changes, message consumers, EF configuration, new module | Focused — consumers + behavior |
| Medium | New feature following existing patterns, bug fix, new endpoint | Standard — checklist pass |
| Low | Docs, formatting, renames, logging statements | Glance — build + tests pass |
Step 2: MCP Analysis (before reading any file)
detect_antipatterns(projectFilter: "affected-project") → async void, DateTime.Now, new HttpClient(), broad catch
get_diagnostics(scope: "project", path: "affected-project") → new warnings, nullability issues
Distinguish newly introduced findings from pre-existing ones — focus on new.
Step 3: Blast Radius Verification
For each modified public API:
find_references(symbolName: "ModifiedType") → count consumers; high count = high risk
get_dependency_graph(symbolName: "ModifiedMethod", depth: 2) → ripple effects
Check whether callers handle changed return types and new error cases.
Step 4: Architecture Compliance
Verify dependency direction (Domain → nothing; Infrastructure → Application →
Domain) via get_project_graph and detect_circular_dependencies. Per
architecture: VSA features don't cross-reference; Clean Architecture domain has
zero project references; Modular Monolith modules communicate only via
integration events — find_references on a module's DbContext should resolve
only inside that module.
Step 5: Manual Review — Priority Order
Review what tools can't catch, highest-risk areas first:
| Priority | Area | Check |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Data access | N+1 (missing Include/projection), raw SQL with user input, missing CancellationToken |
| 2 | Security | Every endpoint has explicit [Authorize]/[AllowAnonymous], input validated, no secrets in code, no PII in logs |
| 3 | Concurrency | Token propagated end-to-end, no .Result/.Wait(), thread-safe shared state |
| 4 | Integration | Retry/timeout on external calls, consumer idempotency, no swallowed exceptions |
| 5 | Correctness | Business logic, edge cases (empty/null/concurrent), entities mapped to DTOs at the boundary |
| 6 | Tests | Behavior tested (not implementation); happy path + main error case covered |
| — | Style/naming | Mention only after the above; formatters and analyzers own this |
Step 6: Produce the Review
Every finding states what's wrong, why it matters, and how to fix it. Never bury a security bug under naming nits.
## Code Review: [Scope]
### Summary
[1-3 sentences: scope, risk level, recommendation]
### Critical (must fix before merge)
- **[Title]** — [file:line] [What's wrong. Why it matters. How to fix.]
### Warnings (should fix, creates tech debt)
- **[Title]** — [file:line] [...]
### Suggestions (nice to have)
- **[Title]** — [file:line] [...]
### Architecture Compliance
[PASS/WARN with boundary-violation notes]
### Test Coverage
[Which changed types have tests; specific scenarios to add]
### What's Good
- [Always include — reinforce good patterns]
Quick review (1-2 files, low blast radius): run detect_antipatterns +
get_diagnostics, read for correctness, output Summary + Issues + What's Good.
Example
User: /code-review the changes in this PR
Claude: 7 changed files across 3 projects. CreateOrder touches data access
and a public endpoint — High blast radius. Running MCP analysis...
## Code Review: Order Processing Feature
### Summary
Adds CreateOrder/GetOrder endpoints with EF Core persistence. Well-structured
VSA feature. Two issues need attention before merge.
### Critical (must fix before merge)
- **Missing CancellationToken propagation** — CreateOrder.cs:38
SaveChangesAsync() called without the token. Client disconnects keep
burning server resources. Pass `ct` from the handler parameter.
### Warnings (should fix, creates tech debt)
- **N+1 query in GetOrder** — GetOrder.cs:25
Order loaded without `.Include(o => o.Items)`; one lazy load per item
during serialization. Eager-load or use a projection.
### Suggestions (nice to have)
- **Seal the handler** — CreateOrderHandler.cs:10
Not designed for inheritance; `sealed` enables devirtualization.
### Architecture Compliance
PASS — all changes within Features/Orders/, no layer violations.
### Test Coverage
Happy path covered. Add tests for validation failure and not-found.
### What's Good
- Clean command/query separation; FluentValidation covers edge cases
- Response DTOs are records, no entity leaks
Related
/de-sloppify— Cleanup pass for the style/formatting issues review skips/verify— Automated verification pipeline (complements manual review)/health-check— Broader project health assessment beyond a single PR