Loading...
Loading...
Compare original and translation side by side
| Level | Icon | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blocker | 🔴 | Bug/security/crash | Must fix before merge |
| Major | 🟡 | Logic issue/test gap | Should fix before merge |
| Minor | 🟢 | Style/naming | Nice to fix |
| Suggestion | 💡 | Alternative approach | Consider for future |
| 等级 | 图标 | 含义 | 操作 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 阻塞问题 | 🔴 | Bug/安全问题/崩溃 | 合并前必须修复 |
| 主要问题 | 🟡 | 逻辑问题/测试缺口 | 合并前建议修复 |
| 次要问题 | 🟢 | 风格/命名问题 | 建议修复 |
| 建议 | 💡 | 替代方案 | 未来版本可考虑 |
| Lines Changed | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| < 200 | Single review session |
| 200-400 | Review in chunks |
| > 400 | Request PR split |
| 代码变更行数 | 建议 |
|---|---|
| <200 | 单次评审完成 |
| 200-400 | 分块评审 |
| >400 | 请求拆分PR |
| ✅ Review | ❌ Skip |
|---|---|
| Logic correctness | Formatting (use linter) |
| Security risks | Naming preferences |
| Test coverage | Architecture debates |
| Performance issues | Style opinions |
| Error handling | Trivial changes |
| ✅ 重点评审 | ❌ 无需关注 |
|---|---|
| 逻辑正确性 | 格式问题(使用代码检查工具) |
| 安全风险 | 命名偏好 |
| 测试覆盖率 | 架构争议 |
| 性能问题 | 风格观点 |
| 错误处理 | 微小变更 |
🔴 **BLOCKER: SQL Injection Risk**
This query is vulnerable to SQL injection:
```javascript
db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`)db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?', [userId])undefined🔴 **BLOCKER: SQL注入风险**
该查询存在SQL注入漏洞:
```javascript
db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`)db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?', [userId])undefined🟡 **MAJOR: Missing Error Handling**
What happens if `fetchUser()` throws? The error bubbles up unhandled.
**Suggestion:** Add try/catch with appropriate error response:
```javascript
try {
const user = await fetchUser(id);
return user;
} catch (error) {
logger.error('Failed to fetch user', { id, error });
throw new NotFoundError('User not found');
}undefined🟡 **MAJOR: 缺少错误处理**
如果`fetchUser()`抛出异常会发生什么?错误会无处理地向上冒泡。
**建议:** 添加try/catch块并返回合适的错误响应:
```javascript
try {
const user = await fetchUser(id);
return user;
} catch (error) {
logger.error('Failed to fetch user', { id, error });
throw new NotFoundError('User not found');
}undefined🟢 **minor:** Variable name could be clearer
`d` doesn't convey meaning. Consider `daysSinceLastLogin`.🟢 **minor: 变量名称可更清晰**
`d`无法表达含义,建议改为`daysSinceLastLogin`。💡 **suggestion:** Consider extracting this to a helper
This validation logic appears in 3 places. A `validateEmail()` helper would reduce duplication. Not blocking, but might be worth a follow-up PR.💡 **suggestion: 考虑提取为辅助函数**
该验证逻辑出现在3个地方。创建一个`validateEmail()`辅助函数可减少重复代码。不阻塞合并,但后续PR可考虑优化。// Comprehensive code review
await Task("Code Review", {
prNumber: 123,
checks: ['security', 'performance', 'testability', 'maintainability'],
feedbackLevels: ['blocker', 'major', 'minor'],
autoApprove: { maxBlockers: 0, maxMajor: 2 }
}, "qe-quality-analyzer");
// Security-focused review
await Task("Security Review", {
prFiles: changedFiles,
scanTypes: ['injection', 'auth', 'secrets', 'dependencies']
}, "qe-security-scanner");
// Test coverage review
await Task("Coverage Review", {
prNumber: 123,
requireNewTests: true,
minCoverageDelta: 0
}, "qe-coverage-analyzer");// 全面代码评审
await Task("Code Review", {
prNumber: 123,
checks: ['security', 'performance', 'testability', 'maintainability'],
feedbackLevels: ['blocker', 'major', 'minor'],
autoApprove: { maxBlockers: 0, maxMajor: 2 }
}, "qe-quality-analyzer");
// 安全专项评审
await Task("Security Review", {
prFiles: changedFiles,
scanTypes: ['injection', 'auth', 'secrets', 'dependencies']
}, "qe-security-scanner");
// 测试覆盖率评审
await Task("Coverage Review", {
prNumber: 123,
requireNewTests: true,
minCoverageDelta: 0
}, "qe-coverage-analyzer");aqe/code-review/
├── review-history/* - Past review decisions
├── patterns/* - Common issues by team/repo
├── feedback-templates/* - Reusable feedback
└── metrics/* - Review turnaround timeaqe/code-review/
├── review-history/* - 过往评审决策
├── patterns/* - 团队/仓库常见问题
├── feedback-templates/* - 可复用反馈模板
└── metrics/* - 评审周转时间const reviewFleet = await FleetManager.coordinate({
strategy: 'code-review',
agents: [
'qe-quality-analyzer', // Logic, maintainability
'qe-security-scanner', // Security risks
'qe-performance-tester', // Performance issues
'qe-coverage-analyzer' // Test coverage
],
topology: 'parallel'
});const reviewFleet = await FleetManager.coordinate({
strategy: 'code-review',
agents: [
'qe-quality-analyzer', // 逻辑、可维护性
'qe-security-scanner', // 安全风险
'qe-performance-tester', // 性能问题
'qe-coverage-analyzer' // 测试覆盖率
],
topology: 'parallel'
});| ✅ Do | ❌ Don't |
|---|---|
| "Have you considered...?" | "This is wrong" |
| Explain why it matters | Just say "fix this" |
| Acknowledge good code | Only point out negatives |
| Suggest, don't demand | Be condescending |
| Review < 400 lines | Review 2000 lines at once |
| ✅ 建议做法 | ❌ 避免做法 |
|---|---|
| 使用“你是否考虑过……?” | 直接说“这是错的” |
| 说明修改的重要性 | 只说“修复这个” |
| 认可优质代码 | 只指出问题 |
| 提出建议,而非命令 | 态度傲慢 |
| 评审代码不超过400行 | 一次性评审2000行代码 |