code-review-hardening
Skill1 starsChanged 45 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use this skill whenever asked to review code - a diff, PR, branch, file, or "cek kode ini" - for bugs, security issues, or quality. Triggers include "review", "audit kode", "ada bug?", "aman gak?", "sebelum merge", or any request to assess code before deploy. Covers correctness, security (OWASP-style), performance, and maintainability. Do NOT use for writing new features or for infra/server audits (use secure-deploy-ops for deploy checks).
- Reads credentials
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- lindoelio/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 7, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- lindoelio/agent-skills★ 3same 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 repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- accounting-coreSkill
- admin-opsSkill
- agent-skill-authorSkill
- content-creatorSkill
- content-editorSkill
- continuous-learningSkill
- coo-orchestratorSkill
- finance-analystSkill
- hr-adminSkill
- hr-officerSkill
- incident-debuggingSkill
- marketing-growthSkill
- prd-creatorSkill
- principal-engineeringSkill
- product-designerSkill
- project-auditSkill
- project-timeline-creatorSkill
- sales-pipelineSkill
- sdlc-masterSkill
- secure-deploy-opsSkill
- social-media-specialistSkill
- strategic-approachSkill
- tech-scoutSkill
- uiux-engineerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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 19
Check in this order (most common real-world first):
- Distinctive: line 21
AuthN/AuthZ: every new endpoint - who can call it?
≈ “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
Code Review & Hardening
Review in two passes, verify before reporting, rank by severity. Never pad the report with style nits when real defects exist.
Pass 1 - Correctness
For each changed function/path, ask:
- Inputs: what happens on empty, null, zero, negative, huge, unicode, duplicate input?
- State: race conditions, re-entrancy, idempotency (retries, double-submit, webhook replays)?
- Errors: are failures swallowed? Does a partial failure leave inconsistent state (DB written, external call failed)?
- Boundaries: off-by-one, timezone/locale, float money math, pagination edges.
- Contracts: does the change break callers? Grep for all call sites before claiming safe.
Pass 2 - Security
Check in this order (most common real-world first):
- Injection: SQL (string-built queries), command (
exec/spawnwith user input), path traversal (../), template injection. - AuthN/AuthZ: every new endpoint - who can call it? IDOR (object id from user without ownership check). Admin-only actions gated server-side, not just in UI.
- Secrets: keys/tokens hardcoded, logged, or committed.
.envin repo. - Payment/webhook: signature verification, amount taken from server not client, replay protection.
- Data exposure: verbose errors to client, PII in logs, mass-assignment.
- Dependencies: new packages - typosquatting, unmaintained, install scripts.
Verify before reporting
A finding is only reportable if you can state a concrete failure scenario: input/state → wrong output/exploit. Trace the actual code path; if you cannot construct the scenario, mark it "perlu konfirmasi" or drop it. False positives destroy trust in the review.
Report format
## Temuan (urut severity)
1. [CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW] file:line - satu kalimat defect.
Skenario gagal: <input/state konkret → akibat>.
Saran fix: <minimal, spesifik>.- CRITICAL: exploitable remotely / data loss / money movement.
- HIGH: wrong results or exploit needing some preconditions.
- MEDIUM: robustness gap likely hit eventually.
- LOW: maintainability/perf polish.
End with a one-line verdict: layak merge / merge dengan syarat / jangan merge. If zero findings survive verification, say so plainly - do not invent 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.