agentleFS
PatriotAgenticLLCPatriotAgenticLLC/better_claude_skillz/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

code-review

Skill3 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Technical code review for quality and bugs that runs pre-commit

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

5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 184 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    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:

    Start by gathering codebase context to understand the codebase standards and patterns.

    line 21
  2. Distinctive:

    After you have a good understanding, run these commands:

    line 30
  3. Distinctive:

    Read each new file in its entirety.

    line 44
  4. Distinctive:

    Run specific tests for issues found

    line 93
  5. Distinctive:

    If no issues found: "Code review passed.

    line 120

“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: Pre-Commit Technical Analysis

Perform technical code review on recently changed files.

Core Principles

Review Philosophy:

  • Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - every line should justify its existence
  • Code is read far more often than it's written - optimize for readability
  • The best code is often the code you don't write
  • Elegance emerges from clarity of intent and economy of expression

What to Review

Start by gathering codebase context to understand the codebase standards and patterns.

Start by examining:

  • CLAUDE.md
  • README.md
  • Key files in core modules
  • Documented standards in docs/ or .claude/reference/

After you have a good understanding, run these commands:

git status
git diff HEAD
git diff --stat HEAD

Then check the list of new files:

git ls-files --others --exclude-standard

Read each new file in its entirety. Read each changed file in its entirety (not just the diff) to understand full context.

For each changed file or new file, analyze for:

1. Logic Errors

  • Off-by-one errors
  • Incorrect conditionals
  • Missing error handling
  • Race conditions
  • Null/undefined handling

2. Security Issues

  • SQL injection vulnerabilities
  • XSS vulnerabilities
  • Insecure data handling
  • Exposed secrets or API keys
  • Authentication/authorization bypasses
  • Command injection

3. Performance Problems

  • N+1 queries
  • Inefficient algorithms
  • Memory leaks
  • Unnecessary computations
  • Missing indexes (database)

4. Code Quality

  • Violations of DRY principle
  • Overly complex functions
  • Poor naming
  • Missing type hints/annotations
  • Inconsistent formatting
  • Magic numbers/strings

5. Adherence to Codebase Standards

  • Adherence to standards documented in CLAUDE.md
  • Adherence to patterns in .claude/reference/ docs
  • Linting and formatting standards
  • Logging standards
  • Testing standards
  • Architectural patterns

Verify Issues Are Real

  • Run specific tests for issues found
  • Confirm type errors are legitimate
  • Validate security concerns with context

Output Format

Save a new file to .claude/code-reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-[feature-name].md

Stats:

  • Files Modified: X
  • Files Added: X
  • Files Deleted: X
  • New lines: X
  • Deleted lines: X

For each issue found:

severity: critical|high|medium|low
file: path/to/file.py
line: 42
issue: [one-line description]
detail: [explanation of why this is a problem]
suggestion: [how to fix it]

If no issues found: "Code review passed. No technical issues detected."

Severity Guidelines

Critical:

  • Security vulnerabilities
  • Data loss risks
  • System crashes

High:

  • Logic errors affecting functionality
  • Performance issues causing timeouts
  • Missing critical error handling

Medium:

  • Code quality issues
  • Minor performance concerns
  • Inconsistent patterns

Low:

  • Style inconsistencies
  • Naming improvements
  • Documentation suggestions

Important

  • Be specific (line numbers, not vague complaints)
  • Focus on real bugs, not style preferences
  • Suggest fixes, don't just complain
  • Flag security issues as CRITICAL
  • Distinguish between must-fix and nice-to-have

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.