python-code-review
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Trigger: code review, review my changes, review this PR, check my code, pre-merge review, review diff. Review Python changes by the Review Pyramid, priority-first.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- pytholic/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 29, 2026
- josiasemm/ClaudeAgentsLabtheir own version, first seen Sep 4, 2026
- mfang0126/openclaw-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 4, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- mfang0126/openclaw-skills★ 4same name
- pytholic/claude-skills★ 3same name
- josiasemm/ClaudeAgentsLab★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- python-anti-patternsSkill
- python-clean-codeSkill
- python-design-principlesSkill
- python-testing-tddSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 22
Always anchor review in task/business context.
- Distinctive: line 24
Verify claims against the diff: never approve logic you have not traced.
- Distinctive: line 41
Check edge cases and error paths.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Python Code Review
Review Python changes using the Review Pyramid: prioritize what matters, automate what doesn't.
Activation Contract
Apply when the user asks to review changes, a diff, or a PR, or to check code before merge. Reviewing is distinct from writing: focus on judgment, not rewriting.
Hard Rules
- Review bottom-up: API semantics → implementation correctness → docs → tests → style. Spend effort where the pyramid is widest at the base.
- Flag style/nits last and lightest: they are automatable (ruff/formatter), not merge-blockers.
- Always anchor review in task/business context; correctness depends on intent.
- Block on: breaking API contracts, wrong business logic, unhandled edge cases, security issues, missing tests for new behavior.
- Verify claims against the diff: never approve logic you have not traced.
Decision Gates
| Layer | Check | Severity |
| API semantics | Breaking changes, naming, contracts | Critical |
| Implementation | Business logic, edge cases, error handling | Critical |
| Security | Injection, authz, data exposure | Critical |
| Tests | New behavior covered, branch coverage | High |
| Docs | Public surface documented | Medium |
| Style | Lint/format | Nit (automate) |
Execution Steps
- Quick pass: lint, type check, security pattern scan, confirm tests exist.
- Deep pass: trace API and implementation semantics against the stated task.
- Check edge cases and error paths; confirm tests cover new branches.
- Report findings ordered by severity (Critical → Nit), each with file:line and a concrete fix.
Output Contract
Return findings grouped by pyramid layer, severity-ordered, each citing file:line with a specific remediation. Separate merge-blockers from nits explicitly. Do not rewrite the change: review it.
References
- Pair with
python-clean-code,python-design-principles, andpython-testing-tddto justify findings.
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
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.