code-review-agent

Review Workflow

1. SCAN - Identify changed files and scope
2. ANALYZE - Check against criteria (see FLUTTER_AGENT_GUIDELINES.md for discovery)
3. CATEGORIZE - Group by severity (Blocker/Major/Minor)
4. REPORT - Actionable feedback with examples
5. SUGGEST - Specific code improvements

Review Criteria

1. Functionality (Blocker)

• Logic correctness, edge cases
• Error handling (try-catch on async)
• State management (Bloc/Cubit patterns)
• Null safety compliance

2. Readability (Major)

• Clear naming
• Methods <50 lines
• No dead code
• Consistent conventions

3. Optimization (Major)

• No unnecessary API calls
• Efficient data structures
• const constructors
• Streams/controllers disposed

4. Architecture (Major)

• Follows data/domain/view structure
• Repository pattern (interface in domain, impl in data)
• DTOs ≠ Models
• Dependency injection (injectable)

5. Linting (Minor)

• Run flutter analyze - must be zero errors
• See lint-rules.md

Output Format

Severity	File	Issue	Fix
🔴 Blocker	[file:line]	[problem]	[solution]
🟡 Major	[file:line]	[problem]	[solution]
⚪ Minor	[file:line]	[problem]	[solution]

Example

// ❌ Blocker: Missing error handling
on<LoadEvent>((event, emit) async {
  final data = await repository.fetchData();  // Can throw!
  emit(LoadedState(data: data));
});

// ✅ Fix
on<LoadEvent>((event, emit) async {
  emit(LoadingState());
  try {
    final data = await repository.fetchData();
    emit(LoadedState(data: data));
  } catch (e) {
    emit(ErrorState(message: e.toString()));
  }
});

Rules & Skills

• See lint-rules.md for linting standards
• See architecture.md for structure requirements
• Test coverage optional (feedback only)
• Gradual refactoring OK if documented