agentleFS
WST2002WST2002/claude-code-skills/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

code-review

Skill4 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when asked to review a pull request, a branch, a diff, staged changes or recent commits, check code before merging, or look for bugs in changes — any language.

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 184 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    If you find no defects, say No defects found and list what you checked.

    line 38

“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

Overview

Find the defects that would hurt users or the team after merge, prove each with a concrete failing scenario, and keep everything else short. A review with three real bugs is worth more than thirty style notes.

Method

  1. Get the change.
    • Branch: git diff <base>...HEAD (base = main unless told otherwise) and git log <base>..HEAD --oneline.
    • Staged: git diff --cached. Pull request: gh pr diff <number>.
  2. Understand intent from commit messages, PR description, and tests in the diff.
  3. Read beyond the hunk. Open each changed function in full and its callers. Most bugs live where the change meets unchanged code.
  4. Hunt with the checklist, category by category: checklist.md.
  5. Verify each candidate. Name the exact input or sequence that breaks it. If you cannot, drop it or mark it as a question.
  6. Report using the contract below.

Output contract

First line: a verdict — Approve, Approve with nits, or Request changes — and the count of findings by severity.

Then each finding, most severe first:

### [Blocker | Major | Minor] Title
- Location: path/file.ext:line
- What breaks: the concrete input, state or sequence, and the wrong result
- Fix: the change, as a short code snippet when useful

Then, optionally, Nits as one-line bullets (maximum five). Then Questions for things that depend on intent.

If you find no defects, say No defects found and list what you checked. Do not invent findings to fill the review.

Severity

LevelMeaning
BlockerData loss, security hole, crash on a common path, breaks existing clients
MajorCrash or exception that real users or data can trigger, wrong result in a realistic case, missing error handling, race, leak
MinorEdge case that needs unusual input and has low impact, confusing code likely to cause future bugs

A change that removes an existing guard (null check, validation, auth check, await) is at least Major: the old code proves that case happens.

Common mistakes

  • Reviewing only the green lines and missing that a caller now passes null.
  • Burying one real bug under twenty formatting comments. Formatting belongs to linters.
  • Flagging intentional behavior as a bug instead of asking.
  • Saying "consider adding tests" without naming the case that is untested.
  • Approving without reading changed tests: a weakened assertion is a defect.

Made by Wageesha Tripathi · LinkedIn · Email · More skills

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.

Reviews can't be read right now.

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.