Awesome-copilot sql-code-review
Universal SQL code review assistant that performs comprehensive security, maintainability, and code quality analysis across all SQL databases (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server, Oracle). Focuses on SQL injection prevention, access control, code standards, and anti-pattern detection. Complements SQL optimization prompt for complete development coverage.
install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/plugins/database-data-management/skills/sql-code-review" ~/.claude/skills/github-awesome-copilot-sql-code-review && rm -rf "$T"
manifest:
plugins/database-data-management/skills/sql-code-review/SKILL.mdsource content
SQL Code Review
Perform a thorough SQL code review of ${selection} (or entire project if no selection) focusing on security, performance, maintainability, and database best practices.
🔒 Security Analysis
SQL Injection Prevention
-- ❌ CRITICAL: SQL Injection vulnerability query = "SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = " + userInput; query = f"DELETE FROM orders WHERE user_id = {user_id}"; -- ✅ SECURE: Parameterized queries -- PostgreSQL/MySQL PREPARE stmt FROM 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?'; EXECUTE stmt USING @user_id; -- SQL Server EXEC sp_executesql N'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = @id', N'@id INT', @id = @user_id;
Access Control & Permissions
- Principle of Least Privilege: Grant minimum required permissions
- Role-Based Access: Use database roles instead of direct user permissions
- Schema Security: Proper schema ownership and access controls
- Function/Procedure Security: Review DEFINER vs INVOKER rights
Data Protection
- Sensitive Data Exposure: Avoid SELECT * on tables with sensitive columns
- Audit Logging: Ensure sensitive operations are logged
- Data Masking: Use views or functions to mask sensitive data
- Encryption: Verify encrypted storage for sensitive data
⚡ Performance Optimization
Query Structure Analysis
-- ❌ BAD: Inefficient query patterns SELECT DISTINCT u.* FROM users u, orders o, products p WHERE u.id = o.user_id AND o.product_id = p.id AND YEAR(o.order_date) = 2024; -- ✅ GOOD: Optimized structure SELECT u.id, u.name, u.email FROM users u INNER JOIN orders o ON u.id = o.user_id WHERE o.order_date >= '2024-01-01' AND o.order_date < '2025-01-01';
Index Strategy Review
- Missing Indexes: Identify columns that need indexing
- Over-Indexing: Find unused or redundant indexes
- Composite Indexes: Multi-column indexes for complex queries
- Index Maintenance: Check for fragmented or outdated indexes
Join Optimization
- Join Types: Verify appropriate join types (INNER vs LEFT vs EXISTS)
- Join Order: Optimize for smaller result sets first
- Cartesian Products: Identify and fix missing join conditions
- Subquery vs JOIN: Choose the most efficient approach
Aggregate and Window Functions
-- ❌ BAD: Inefficient aggregation SELECT user_id, (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM orders o2 WHERE o2.user_id = o1.user_id) as order_count FROM orders o1 GROUP BY user_id; -- ✅ GOOD: Efficient aggregation SELECT user_id, COUNT(*) as order_count FROM orders GROUP BY user_id;
🛠️ Code Quality & Maintainability
SQL Style & Formatting
-- ❌ BAD: Poor formatting and style select u.id,u.name,o.total from users u left join orders o on u.id=o.user_id where u.status='active' and o.order_date>='2024-01-01'; -- ✅ GOOD: Clean, readable formatting SELECT u.id, u.name, o.total FROM users u LEFT JOIN orders o ON u.id = o.user_id WHERE u.status = 'active' AND o.order_date >= '2024-01-01';
Naming Conventions
- Consistent Naming: Tables, columns, constraints follow consistent patterns
- Descriptive Names: Clear, meaningful names for database objects
- Reserved Words: Avoid using database reserved words as identifiers
- Case Sensitivity: Consistent case usage across schema
Schema Design Review
- Normalization: Appropriate normalization level (avoid over/under-normalization)
- Data Types: Optimal data type choices for storage and performance
- Constraints: Proper use of PRIMARY KEY, FOREIGN KEY, CHECK, NOT NULL
- Default Values: Appropriate default values for columns
🗄️ Database-Specific Best Practices
PostgreSQL
-- Use JSONB for JSON data CREATE TABLE events ( id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY, data JSONB NOT NULL, created_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT NOW() ); -- GIN index for JSONB queries CREATE INDEX idx_events_data ON events USING gin(data); -- Array types for multi-value columns CREATE TABLE tags ( post_id INT, tag_names TEXT[] );
MySQL
-- Use appropriate storage engines CREATE TABLE sessions ( id VARCHAR(128) PRIMARY KEY, data TEXT, expires TIMESTAMP ) ENGINE=InnoDB; -- Optimize for InnoDB ALTER TABLE large_table ADD INDEX idx_covering (status, created_at, id);
SQL Server
-- Use appropriate data types CREATE TABLE products ( id BIGINT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY, name NVARCHAR(255) NOT NULL, price DECIMAL(10,2) NOT NULL, created_at DATETIME2 DEFAULT GETUTCDATE() ); -- Columnstore indexes for analytics CREATE COLUMNSTORE INDEX idx_sales_cs ON sales;
Oracle
-- Use sequences for auto-increment CREATE SEQUENCE user_id_seq START WITH 1 INCREMENT BY 1; CREATE TABLE users ( id NUMBER DEFAULT user_id_seq.NEXTVAL PRIMARY KEY, name VARCHAR2(255) NOT NULL );
🧪 Testing & Validation
Data Integrity Checks
-- Verify referential integrity SELECT o.user_id FROM orders o LEFT JOIN users u ON o.user_id = u.id WHERE u.id IS NULL; -- Check for data consistency SELECT COUNT(*) as inconsistent_records FROM products WHERE price < 0 OR stock_quantity < 0;
Performance Testing
- Execution Plans: Review query execution plans
- Load Testing: Test queries with realistic data volumes
- Stress Testing: Verify performance under concurrent load
- Regression Testing: Ensure optimizations don't break functionality
📊 Common Anti-Patterns
N+1 Query Problem
-- ❌ BAD: N+1 queries in application code for user in users: orders = query("SELECT * FROM orders WHERE user_id = ?", user.id) -- ✅ GOOD: Single optimized query SELECT u.*, o.* FROM users u LEFT JOIN orders o ON u.id = o.user_id;
Overuse of DISTINCT
-- ❌ BAD: DISTINCT masking join issues SELECT DISTINCT u.name FROM users u, orders o WHERE u.id = o.user_id; -- ✅ GOOD: Proper join without DISTINCT SELECT u.name FROM users u INNER JOIN orders o ON u.id = o.user_id GROUP BY u.name;
Function Misuse in WHERE Clauses
-- ❌ BAD: Functions prevent index usage SELECT * FROM orders WHERE YEAR(order_date) = 2024; -- ✅ GOOD: Range conditions use indexes SELECT * FROM orders WHERE order_date >= '2024-01-01' AND order_date < '2025-01-01';
📋 SQL Review Checklist
Security
- All user inputs are parameterized
- No dynamic SQL construction with string concatenation
- Appropriate access controls and permissions
- Sensitive data is properly protected
- SQL injection attack vectors are eliminated
Performance
- Indexes exist for frequently queried columns
- No unnecessary SELECT * statements
- JOINs are optimized and use appropriate types
- WHERE clauses are selective and use indexes
- Subqueries are optimized or converted to JOINs
Code Quality
- Consistent naming conventions
- Proper formatting and indentation
- Meaningful comments for complex logic
- Appropriate data types are used
- Error handling is implemented
Schema Design
- Tables are properly normalized
- Constraints enforce data integrity
- Indexes support query patterns
- Foreign key relationships are defined
- Default values are appropriate
🎯 Review Output Format
Issue Template
## [PRIORITY] [CATEGORY]: [Brief Description] **Location**: [Table/View/Procedure name and line number if applicable] **Issue**: [Detailed explanation of the problem] **Security Risk**: [If applicable - injection risk, data exposure, etc.] **Performance Impact**: [Query cost, execution time impact] **Recommendation**: [Specific fix with code example] **Before**: ```sql -- Problematic SQL
After:
-- Improved SQL
Expected Improvement: [Performance gain, security benefit]
### Summary Assessment - **Security Score**: [1-10] - SQL injection protection, access controls - **Performance Score**: [1-10] - Query efficiency, index usage - **Maintainability Score**: [1-10] - Code quality, documentation - **Schema Quality Score**: [1-10] - Design patterns, normalization ### Top 3 Priority Actions 1. **[Critical Security Fix]**: Address SQL injection vulnerabilities 2. **[Performance Optimization]**: Add missing indexes or optimize queries 3. **[Code Quality]**: Improve naming conventions and documentation Focus on providing actionable, database-agnostic recommendations while highlighting platform-specific optimizations and best practices.