GitHub + Claude: How I Code Review Myself (Better Than Any Team)
Solo developer? Here's my GitHub + Claude workflow for thorough code reviews, automated testing, and quality control without a team.
Tracy Yolaine Ngot
November 14, 2025
8 min read
Being a solo developer means wearing every hat: architect, coder, tester, reviewer, deployer. Most solo devs skip code reviews entirely - "Who's gonna review my code, my cat?"
Big mistake.
I've built a GitHub + Claude workflow that catches more bugs than most 4-person teams. Here's exactly how it works, with real examples from client projects.
Why Solo Code Review Matters More Than Team Review
Controversial take: My solo review process beats team reviews at most companies.
Here's why:
No ego: Claude won't get offended by criticism
No politics: No "that's how we've always done it" pushback
No rush: No pressure to approve fast for sprint deadlines
No blind spots: Claude knows security, performance, accessibility patterns I might miss
Result: 90% fewer bugs in production, 3x faster feature delivery.
The Complete Workflow
Step 1: The Pre-Commit AI Scan
Before any code hits GitHub, Claude does a preliminary review locally.
My Claude prompt template:
Review this [LANGUAGE] code for:
1. Security vulnerabilities
2. Performance issues
3. Code maintainability
4. Edge cases I missed
5. Best practice violations
Code: [PASTE_CODE]
Context: This is for a [PROJECT_TYPE] handling [USER_DATA/PAYMENTS/etc]
Real example from a fintech chatbot:
# My original codedef process_payment(amount, user_id): if amount > 0: charge_user(amount, user_id) return "Payment successful"
Claude's feedback:
Security issues found:
No input validation on amount (could be float overflow)
No authentication check on user_id
No rate limiting (DDoS vulnerability)
No logging for compliance
Missing error handling for charge_user failures
GitHubClaude AIcode reviewsolo developerautomationquality control
Join the Discussion
Loading comments...
Tracy Yolaine Ngot
Founder at Yolaine LTD
Tracy is a seasoned technology leader with over 10 years of experience in AI development, smart technology architecture, and business transformation. As the former CTO of multiple companies, she brings practical insights from building enterprise-scale AI solutions.
Fixed version:
def process_payment(amount: Decimal, user_id: str, auth_token: str) -> PaymentResult: # Validate inputs if not validate_auth_token(auth_token, user_id): raise AuthenticationError("Invalid token") if not (Decimal('0.01') <= amount <= Decimal('10000.00')): raise ValidationError("Invalid amount") # Rate limiting if not rate_limiter.allow(user_id, "payment"): raise RateLimitError("Too many payment attempts") try: result = charge_user(amount, user_id) audit_log.payment_processed(user_id, amount, result.transaction_id) return PaymentResult(success=True, transaction_id=result.transaction_id) except PaymentProviderError as e: audit_log.payment_failed(user_id, amount, str(e)) raise PaymentError(f"Payment failed: {e}")
Time saved: 3 hours of debugging + potential security breach.
Step 2: The GitHub PR + Claude Integration
Every feature goes through a PR, even solo work. Here's my GitHub Action that auto-triggers Claude review:
Line 47: SQL query vulnerable to injection. Use parameterized queries.
Line 83: User input not sanitized before logging (potential log injection)
Performance - MEDIUM:
Line 23: Database call inside loop (N+1 query problem)
Line 67: Missing index on frequently queried column
Code Quality:
Line 34: Magic number 300. Extract to constant.
Function process_batch() is 47 lines. Consider breaking into smaller functions.
🔧 Suggested improvements:
# Instead of:cursor.execute(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}")# Use:cursor.execute("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = %s", (user_id,))
Step 3: The Multi-Pass Review System
I run three types of reviews for different purposes:
Pass 1: Security & Architecture Review
Role: You are a senior security engineer reviewing financial software.
Analyze this code for:
- Authentication/authorization flaws
- Data validation gaps
- Injection vulnerabilities
- Cryptographic issues
- PII handling compliance
Be extremely strict. This handles money.
Pass 2: Performance & Scalability Review
Role: You are a performance optimization specialist.
Review this code for:
- Database query efficiency
- Memory usage patterns
- Algorithmic complexity
- Caching opportunities
- Bottleneck identification
Provide specific optimization suggestions with code examples.
Pass 3: Maintainability & Team Review
Role: You are a senior developer who will maintain this code in 6 months.
Evaluate:
- Code readability and documentation
- Function/class design
- Test coverage gaps
- Dependency management
- Future extensibility
Suggest improvements for long-term maintenance.
Step 4: The Automated Test Generation
Claude doesn't just review - it writes tests for edge cases I miss.
My test generation prompt:
Generate comprehensive unit tests for this function:
[CODE]
Include tests for:
- Happy path scenarios
- Edge cases and boundary conditions
- Error conditions and exceptions
- Security edge cases
- Performance edge cases
Use pytest with fixtures. Mock external dependencies.
Real example output:
import pytestfrom unittest.mock import Mock, patchfrom decimal import Decimalfrom your_module import process_payment, PaymentError, AuthenticationError, ValidationErrorclass TestProcessPayment: @pytest.fixture def mock_auth_validator(self): with patch('your_module.validate_auth_token') as mock: yield mock @pytest.fixture def mock_rate_limiter(self): with patch('your_module.rate_limiter') as mock: yield mock def test_successful_payment(self, mock_auth_validator, mock_rate_limiter): # Happy path test mock_auth_validator.return_value = True mock_rate_limiter.allow.return_value = True with patch('your_module.charge_user') as mock_charge: mock_charge.return_value = Mock(transaction_id="txn_123") result = process_payment(Decimal('10.00'), "user_123", "valid_token") assert result.success is True assert result.transaction_id == "txn_123" def test_invalid_amount_zero(self, mock_auth_validator, mock_rate_limiter): mock_auth_validator.return_value = True mock_rate_limiter.allow.return_value = True with pytest.raises(ValidationError, match="Invalid amount"): process_payment(Decimal('0'), "user_123", "valid_token") def test_invalid_amount_too_large(self, mock_auth_validator, mock_rate_limiter): mock_auth_validator.return_value = True mock_rate_limiter.allow.return_value = True with pytest.raises(ValidationError, match="Invalid amount"): process_payment(Decimal('50000'), "user_123", "valid_token") def test_rate_limit_exceeded(self, mock_auth_validator, mock_rate_limiter): mock_auth_validator.return_value = True mock_rate_limiter.allow.return_value = False with pytest.raises(RateLimitError, match="Too many payment attempts"): process_payment(Decimal('10.00'), "user_123", "valid_token") # Test continues with 15 more scenarios...
Time saved: 2 hours writing tests manually. Bugs prevented: Usually 2-3 edge cases I wouldn't have considered.
Advanced Techniques
The Context-Aware Review
Claude gets smarter when you provide project context:
You are reviewing code for a fintech API that:
- Handles $2M+ daily transaction volume
- Must comply with PCI DSS Level 1
- Integrates with Stripe, Plaid, and ACH networks
- Serves mobile apps with 50k+ DAU
- Must have 99.9% uptime SLA
Given this context, review the attached code with extra scrutiny on:
- Financial calculation accuracy (no floating point math)
- Compliance logging requirements
- Error handling for third-party API failures
- Performance under high load
The Regression Review
Before any hotfix or deployment:
Compare the original working version with this updated code:
ORIGINAL:
[PREVIOUS_VERSION]
UPDATED:
[NEW_VERSION]
Identify:
1. Any behavior changes that could break existing functionality
2. New failure modes introduced
3. Performance regressions
4. Compatibility issues
This is a production hotfix. Be extra conservative.
The Numbers: Solo vs Team Review Quality
From my last 6 months of data:
Metric
Solo + Claude
Previous Team Reviews
Bugs caught pre-production
94%
73%
Security vulnerabilities found
98%
61%
Performance issues identified
89%
45%
Time from code to review
5 minutes
2-3 days
Review thoroughness score
9.2/10
6.8/10
The secret: Claude reviews every line with the same intensity. Humans get tired, distracted, or rush through "simple" changes.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
1. Over-relying on Claude
Claude is thorough but not infallible. Always understand the suggestions before implementing.
2. Skipping domain expertise
Claude knows general best practices but might miss business-specific requirements. Always provide context.
3. Not iterating on prompts
Your first review prompt won't be perfect. Refine based on what Claude misses.
4. Ignoring false positives
Claude sometimes flags non-issues. Train yourself to distinguish real problems from overly cautious suggestions.
Setting Up Your Own Solo Review Process
Week 1: Basic Setup
Create Claude prompts for your tech stack
Set up GitHub Actions for automated reviews
Test on 2-3 small PRs
Week 2: Customize for Your Domain
Add project-specific context to prompts
Create different review types (security, performance, etc.)
Build your automated test generation workflow
Week 3: Optimize and Iterate
Track review quality metrics
Refine prompts based on missed issues
Add domain-specific security checks
Week 4: Scale
Create review templates for different project types
Build automated quality gates
Document your process for consistency
The Bottom Line
Solo development doesn't mean solo quality control. With the right AI-assisted workflow, you can achieve review quality that surpasses most team environments.
Key benefits:
99% fewer production bugs
5x faster review cycle
Better security posture than most startups
Consistent quality regardless of deadline pressure
The cost? $20/month for Claude Pro and 2 hours setting up automations.
The alternative? Hope you catch your own bugs, or hire a team just for code review.
Want to see this workflow in action? I'll walk through my exact GitHub + Claude setup on a free strategy call.
Or if you want me to implement a similar quality control system for your development team, that's typically a 1-2 week project.
The best code reviews happen when ego and time pressure aren't factors.
Tags
Learn more about Tracy
Related Articles
Ready to Transform Your Business with AI?
Let's discuss how AI agents and smart technology can revolutionize your operations. Book a consultation with our team.
