agentleFS
Sign inStart free
eigent-aieigent-ai/agent-skills/skills/coding-agents-and-ides/review/SKILL.md

review

Skill27 starsChanged 8 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Perform a direct five-axis code review across correctness, security, performance, readability, and maintainability. Use when the user asks for `/review`, PR review, security review, pre-merge review, production readiness review, or blocking issue assessment.

192 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

  • LambenthanSkill

    daily-arxiv

    每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文，过滤相关性，auto-ingest 高优先级论文，检测 SOTA 更新

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • LambenthanSkill

    exp-eval

    实验判决门：Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • +3 more from dzhng
  • +5 more from Lambenthan

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 157 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:

    Use this skill for code-review work.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Check whether tests cover the changed behavior and important failure modes.

    line 21
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep feedback specific and actionable.

    line 22
  4. Distinctive:

    If no issues are found, say so clearly and mention residual test gaps or assumptions.

    line 28

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 157 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

Review

Overview

Use this skill for code-review work. Prioritize bugs, behavioral regressions, security risks, performance issues, and missing tests. Findings come first, ordered by severity, with concrete file and line references whenever possible.

Workflow

  1. Inspect the requested diff, files, branch, or pull request context.
  2. Review across five axes:
    • Correctness.
    • Security.
    • Performance.
    • Readability.
    • Maintainability.
  3. Check whether tests cover the changed behavior and important failure modes.
  4. Keep feedback specific and actionable; avoid broad style commentary unless it affects maintainability or correctness.
  5. Flag issues by severity:
    • Blocking: should not ship.
    • High: likely bug, security issue, or serious regression.
    • Medium: meaningful risk or missing coverage.
    • Low: small maintainability or clarity improvement.
  6. If no issues are found, say so clearly and mention residual test gaps or assumptions.

Output Pattern

  1. Findings first, ordered by severity.
  2. Open questions or assumptions.
  3. Brief change summary only after findings.
  4. Tests or verification reviewed.

Example Prompts

  • /review - Review this pull request. Flag anything that affects security, performance, or will be hard to maintain in 6 months. Be direct about blocking issues.
  • /review - Audit this API endpoint handler for security issues. Check for injection risks, missing auth checks, improper error handling, and data exposure.
  • /review - This is going to production tomorrow. Do a final review focused only on breaking changes, regressions, and anything that could cause an incident.

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