3x-ui/REVIEW.md

Review instructions

3x-ui is a Go (Gin + GORM) web panel that generates configuration, share links and subscriptions for other programs — Xray-core, mihomo, sing-box, mtg-multi — and is deployed by operators who upgrade in place. Judge findings by what breaks for those consumers and operators, not by style.

What a blocking finding means here

Reserve blocking severity for:

• Security on the exposed surfaces: internal/web/controller/, session and middleware code, the PUBLIC internal/sub/ subscription server, and Xray config generation in internal/xray/.
• A state-changing inbound or client operation that bypasses runtime.Runtime (internal/web/runtime/) and calls internal/xray/api.go directly, or dispatches from a controller or cron job. It passes every local test and silently breaks every multi-node deployment.
• A schema or model change without a matching hand-written migration in internal/database/db.go, one that behaves differently on SQLite and PostgreSQL, or one that loses or overwrites operator data on upgrade or rollback. There are no migration files and no down-migrations.
• A change to what the panel emits on the wire — Xray config JSON, share links, subscription/Clash YAML, mtg-multi TOML — that a downstream client would reject or read differently, or that makes the three independent link implementations (Go internal/util/link/ + internal/sub/, TS frontend/src/lib/xray/, TS docs/lib/xray/) diverge from one another.
• Any edit to .github/workflows/: this repository runs workflows with secrets against a public fork stream. Untrusted expression interpolation into run: blocks, broadened permissions, weakened guards, or a job that executes pull-request code is blocking.

Style, naming and refactoring suggestions are nits at most.

Always check

• A new g.POST/g.GET in internal/web/controller/ needs the whole chain: an entry in frontend/src/pages/api-docs/endpoints.ts, regenerated artefacts (make gen), any new API-boundary struct added to StructAllow in tools/openapigen/main.go, and frontend/public/openapi.json copied to docs/public/openapi.json with the docs MDX regenerated (cd docs && pnpm gen:api). CI checks the first three; the docs copy is checked by nothing — a missed copy is blocking, not a nit.
• A new i18n key exists in ALL 13 locale files in internal/web/translation/ and is referenced from frontend/src or Go in the same PR.
• A bug fix carries a test that would fail without the fix. A test that passes either way, asserts only err != nil or len(x) > 0, or was made green by regenerating golden fixtures or Vitest snapshots is a real finding.

Do not report

• Anything CI already enforces: golangci-lint and gofumpt, oxlint, format and typecheck, npm audit, govulncheck.
• The contents of generated files (frontend/src/generated/, frontend/public/openapi.json, docs/public/openapi.json) or lock files. Those files being STALE after a source change is reportable; their style is not.
• Missing tests for getters, constants, renames or pure map lookups — CLAUDE.md rejects such tests outright.

Verification bar

• A claim about behaviour needs a file:line citation from this repository, not an inference from a name.
• A claim that a downstream client rejects or requires a wire-format detail — a config key, JSON tag, URI query parameter, YAML or TOML key, an encoding or hash choice — must name the upstream symbol that decides it (repository, file, identifier). If you cannot verify it, keep the finding but say explicitly that it is unverified instead of asserting it.

Cap the nits

Report at most five nits per review and say "plus N similar" in the summary for the rest. Lead the summary with "No blocking issues" when everything found is a nit. After the first review of a PR, report blocking findings only.

What the comment must show

The posted comment is the only part of a review anyone sees, so a bare "no issues found" is a receipt, not a review: nothing in it says whether the diff was read or the run died early. Every comment therefore ends with a short coverage list — one line per area actually checked, naming what was examined and what it turned out to be, plus the head SHA and the size of the diff it covers. Say which claims could not be verified and why, including a check this environment blocked. Keep it under ten lines; it is evidence, not a retelling of the pull request.