agentleFS
Eleven-MEleven-M/flowmind/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

code-review

Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Code review and quality analysis skill for FlowMind. Analyze code for security vulnerabilities, style violations, and best practices.

  • Reads credentials

194 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use close-spec, design-with-images and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • dzhngSkill

    close-spec

    When a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes) and [review](../review/SKILL.md) (run before closing).

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • dzhngSkill

    design-with-images

    Explore UI and visual design with image generation, then iterate the real implementation against the user-selected concept. Use when brainstorming visual directions, offering mockup variants, or implementing an approved generated design; do not stop at the mockups or the first code approximation.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • PydanticSkill

    add-new-model

    Add support for a newly-released language or image generation model in pydantic-ai (e.g. openai:gpt-5.6, anthropic:claude-sonnet-5, openai:gpt-image-2). Use when a provider ships a new model id and you need to wire literals, profile flags, adapters, and tests to recognize it. Handles SDK-lag, gateway list conventions, capability probing, and direct image-model geometry.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • transitive-bullshitSkill

    compare-screenshots

    Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • Microsoft AzureSkill

    azsdk-common-apiview-feedback-resolution

    Analyze and resolve APIView review feedback on Azure SDK PRs. **UTILITY SKILL**. USE FOR: APIView comments, API review feedback, SDK API surface changes. DO NOT USE FOR: general code review, non-APIView feedback. INVOKES: azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_apiview_get_comments, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_customized_code_update, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_typespec_delegate_apiview_feedback, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_run_typespec_validation, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_package_generate_code.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • Microsoft AzureSkill

    azsdk-common-generate-sdk-locally

    Generate and finalize Azure SDKs locally from TypeSpec, including build, checks, tests, changelog, metadata, and version updates by default. WHEN: "generate SDK locally", "build SDK", "run SDK tests", "run CI checks", "validate package", "run checks", "update changelog", "fix SDK build errors", "resolve SDK generation errors", "customize TypeSpec", "rename SDK client", "rename SDK model", "hide operation from SDK", "fix analyzer errors", "resolve customization drift", "create subclient", "update metadata", "update version". INVOKES: azsdk_verify_setup, azsdk_package_generate_code, azsdk_package_build_code, azsdk_package_run_check, azsdk_package_run_tests, azsdk_customized_code_update, azsdk_package_update_changelog_content, azsdk_package_update_metadata, azsdk_package_update_version.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • +4 more from dzhng
  • +2 more from Azure

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 184 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Add custom review rules:

    line 175

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 184 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Code Review Skill

Analyze code for security vulnerabilities, style violations, and best practices.

Features

🔒 Security Analysis

  • SQL injection detection
  • XSS vulnerability scanning
  • Authentication issues
  • Sensitive data exposure

📏 Code Quality

  • Style guide compliance
  • Complexity analysis
  • Code duplication detection
  • Documentation completeness

✅ Best Practices

  • Design pattern adherence
  • Error handling review
  • Performance considerations
  • Testing coverage

Trigger Patterns

"代码审查", "code review", "review"
"安全检查", "security check"
"代码质量", "code quality"
"PR审查", "PR review"
"代码规范", "style guide"

Output Format

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Code Review Report                                  │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Files Analyzed: {count}                             │
│ Lines of Code: {loc}                                │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Security Issues: {count}                            │
│ • [HIGH] {issue} at {file}:{line}                   │
│ • [MEDIUM] {issue} at {file}:{line}                 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Quality Issues: {count}                             │
│ • {issue} at {file}:{line}                          │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Suggestions:                                        │
│ • {suggestion}                                      │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Review Categories

Security Checks

CheckSeverityDescription
SQL InjectionHIGHUnsanitized user input in queries
XSSHIGHUnescaped output in templates
Hardcoded SecretsHIGHCredentials in source code
Weak CryptoMEDIUMInsecure encryption algorithms

Quality Checks

CheckSeverityDescription
ComplexityMEDIUMFunctions too complex
DuplicationLOWDuplicated code blocks
DocumentationLOWMissing documentation
NamingLOWPoor naming conventions

Learning Integration

This skill supports FlowMind learning:

  • Review Focus: Learns which issues you care about most
  • Severity Levels: Learns your severity preferences
  • Output Format: Learns preferred report format
User: "先检查安全漏洞"
FlowMind: ✓ Learned: Security first for code review

User: [Next review]
FlowMind: [Prioritizes security issues]

Examples

Example 1: Security Review

User: 检查这个文件的安全漏洞

FlowMind:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Security Review                                     │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ File: src/api/users.js                              │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 🔴 HIGH: SQL Injection                              │
│    Line 45: query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id=${id}`)│
│    Fix: Use parameterized queries                   │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 🟡 MEDIUM: Hardcoded Secret                         │
│    Line 12: const API_KEY = 'abc123'                │
│    Fix: Use environment variables                   │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Example 2: Code Quality Review

User: 审查这段代码的质量

FlowMind:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Code Quality Review                                 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Function: processOrder                              │
│ Lines: 85                                           │
│ Complexity: 12 (HIGH)                               │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Issues:                                             │
│ • Function too long (85 lines)                      │
│ • High cyclomatic complexity                        │
│ • Missing error handling                            │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Suggestions:                                        │
│ • Split into smaller functions                      │
│ • Add try-catch blocks                              │
│ • Add unit tests                                    │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Configuration

{
  "code-review": {
    "security": {
      "enabled": true,
      "severity": ["high", "medium", "low"]
    },
    "quality": {
      "enabled": true,
      "maxComplexity": 10,
      "maxFunctionLength": 50
    },
    "style": {
      "enabled": true,
      "guide": "standard"
    }
  }
}

Customization

Custom Rules

Add custom review rules:

{
  "code-review": {
    "customRules": [
      {
        "name": "no-console-log",
        "pattern": "console\\.log",
        "severity": "warning",
        "message": "Remove console.log statements"
      }
    ]
  }
}

Ignore Patterns

Exclude files from review:

{
  "code-review": {
    "ignore": [
      "**/test/**",
      "**/*.test.js",
      "**/node_modules/**"
    ]
  }
}

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.