agentleFS
Sign inStart free
aprameyakaprameyak/coding-skills/code-review/SKILL.md

code-review

Skill1 starsChanged 41 days agoMITView on GitHub

Review diffs for correctness, security, and maintainability. Use when reviewing PRs, examining patches, or when the user asks for a code review.

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

4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 184 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    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:

    Read the PR description and linked issue.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Check tests against claimed behavior.

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    Prefer concrete fixes over vague advice.

    line 49
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not demand refactors unrelated to the change.

    line 50

“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

Process

  1. Read the PR description and linked issue.
  2. Skim the full diff for scope and intent.
  3. Trace changed control flow and data flow.
  4. Check tests against claimed behavior.
  5. Report findings ordered by severity.

Severity

  • Blocker: wrong behavior, data loss, security hole, broken build
  • Major: likely bug, missing validation, weak tests for critical path
  • Minor: clarity, naming, small maintainability issues
  • Nit: pure preference; use sparingly

Checklist

  • Correctness and edge cases
  • AuthZ/AuthN and untrusted input handling
  • Concurrency, retries, idempotency where relevant
  • Error paths and user-visible failures
  • Performance footguns (N+1, unbounded allocs)
  • Tests cover the change
  • No secrets or PII leakage
  • API/compat breakage is intentional and documented

Output

Verdict: approve | request changes | comment
Blockers:
- file:line — issue — fix hint
Majors:
- ...
Notes:
- ...

Rules

  • Critique the diff, not the author.
  • Prefer concrete fixes over vague advice.
  • Do not demand refactors unrelated to the change.

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.

Check your setup, free