code-review
Systematic code analysis with evidence collection
Installation
Follow the repository instructions for this skill and your agent. Review the files and dependencies before adding it to your workflow.
View source ↗GuidesSkill instructions
Code Review
"Read with intent. Question with purpose. Document with care."
Systematic code analysis with evidence collection. Code review IS an adventure — the codebase is the dungeon, findings are clues.
Review Process
READ → NOTE ISSUES → CLASSIFY → REPORT
Step 1: Setup
- Create REVIEW.yml
- Identify files to review
- Define focus areas
Step 2: Overview
- List all changed files
- Read PR/commit description
- Note initial impressions
Step 3: Deep Review
For each file:
- Read the code
- Check against criteria
- Note findings
- Run relevant checks
Step 4: Verification
- Run tests
- Run linters
- Check regressions
Step 5: Synthesize
- Compile findings
- Prioritize issues
- Generate REVIEW.md
- State recommendation
Finding Severity
| Level | Symbol | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blocking | 🚫 | Must fix before merge | Request changes |
| Important | ⚠️ | Should fix or explain | Request changes |
| Minor | 💡 | Nice to fix | Comment only |
| Praise | 🎉 | Good work! | Celebrate |
Finding Types
- Security — Injection, auth, sensitive data
- Correctness — Logic errors, edge cases
- Performance — N+1 queries, memory leaks
- Maintainability — Clarity, DRY, naming
- Style — Formatting, conventions
Review Checklist
Security
- Input validation
- Output encoding
- Authentication/authorization
- Sensitive data handling
- Injection vulnerabilities
- Timing attacks
Correctness
- Logic errors
- Edge cases handled
- Null/undefined handling
- Error handling
- Race conditions
- Resource cleanup
Maintainability
- Code clarity
- Appropriate comments
- Consistent naming
- DRY (no duplication)
- Single responsibility
- Testability
Performance
- Algorithmic complexity
- Memory usage
- Database queries
- Caching
- Unnecessary operations
Core Files
REVIEW.yml
review:
name: "PR #123: Add user authentication"
status: "in_progress"
findings:
blocking:
- id: "B1"
file: "src/auth/login.ts"
line: 45
type: "security"
summary: "Timing attack vulnerability"
important: []
minor: []
praise: []
verification:
tests: { ran: true, passed: true }
linter: { ran: true, passed: false, issues: 3 }
REVIEW.md
Formatted document with:
- Summary and counts
- Issues by severity
- Verification results
- Recommendation
Verification Commands
tests:
- "npm test"
- "pytest"
- "go test ./..."
linters:
- "npm run lint"
- "flake8"
- "golangci-lint run"
Recommendation Output
| Outcome | Meaning |
|---|---|
approve |
Good to merge |
request_changes |
Has blocking/important issues |
comment |
Minor feedback only |
See Also
- rubric — Explicit scoring criteria for code quality
- evaluator — Independent assessment pattern
- adversarial-committee — Multiple reviewers debating findings
Examples
Read the usage examples in the source repository.
View source ↗Source history
- Indexed on
- 2026-01-20
- Index updated
- 2026-02-02
- Branch
- main
Index and sync dates describe this directory. View the source repository for code history.
GitHub ↗chat Comments (0)
Sign in to join the discussion and leave a comment.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!