Yes, to a point. Most security questions are about data flow, trust and missing checks, which look the same in any language. You can review those, say clearly what you did not review, and ask a language specialist to cover idioms and library details you cannot judge.
What carries across languages
The OWASP Secure Code Review Cheat Sheet is deliberately language neutral. Its method is to understand the architecture and business requirements, identify modified files and affected components, assess the impact on existing security controls, and trace data from sources to sinks. None of that needs fluent syntax.
A reviewer who does not write Go can still ask:
- Where does this request data come from, and is it checked before use?
- Does this handler confirm the caller may access this record?
- Does a new outbound call use an address the user controls?
- Was a check removed in this diff?
- Does the description match what the code does?
What does not carry
Some risks are specific to a language or library, and a non-specialist cannot see them.
| Needs a specialist | Why |
|---|---|
| Idiomatic safe APIs | Knowing which call is safe in this library |
| Memory and concurrency rules | Language level guarantees differ |
| Framework defaults | A setting may be safe in one version and not another |
| Build and packaging details | Language ecosystems differ |
| Subtle type or coercion behaviour | Syntax looks harmless |
You do not need to learn these. You do need to know they exist and say you did not cover them.
A method for an unfamiliar language
- Read the description and the tests first. Google's public guidance on navigating a change suggests starting with a broad view and, sometimes, reading tests before the main code to understand what it is meant to do. Tests are usually readable even in an unfamiliar language.
- Find the main file. Look for the biggest logical change, as the same guidance advises.
- Trace data by name, not syntax. Follow a variable from where it enters to where it lands. Function names like
query,exec,open,renderandsendlook similar across languages. - Look up one thing at a time. When something puzzles you, ask the author, or check the standard documentation. Do not guess.
- Write down what you did not review.
Say what you covered
This is the most important habit. A short note changes how your approval is read:
Reviewed: authorization on the new endpoint, input handling, tests.
Not reviewed: concurrency in the worker, library idioms.
Please have a Rust reviewer look at the worker.
Without it, an approval can be read as a full review. With it, you have given honest, useful signal and routed the rest correctly.
Ask good questions
Google's guidance says that asking a developer to explain code you do not understand should usually result in the code being rewritten more clearly, and that explanations in the review tool alone do not help future readers. If something is confusing to you, it may be confusing to the next maintainer as well, and that is a fair review comment.
When to decline
If the change is in a high-risk area, such as cryptography, memory handling or authentication, and nobody who knows the language is available, say so and ask for a second reviewer. Declining early is a service.
Quick check
Is a partial review better than none?
Yes if you state the scope. A clearly labelled partial review gives the team accurate information. An unlabelled one gives false comfort.
Can a scanner cover the language gap?
It can help for known patterns in supported languages. Check which languages and frameworks your tools actually support, and keep a human on design and logic.
Sources
- OWASP Secure Code Review Cheat Sheet
- Google Engineering Practices: Navigating a CL in review
- Google Engineering Practices: How to write code review comments
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
