Use when receiving code review feedback (especially if unclear or technically questionable), when completing tasks or major features requiring review before proceeding, or before making any completion/success claims. Covers three practices - receiving feedback with technical rigor over performative agreement, requesting reviews via code-reviewer subagent, and verification gates requiring evidence before any status claims. Essential for subagent-driven development, pull requests, and preventing false completion claims.
[UDS] Reference for systematic code review: eight review categories and BLOCKING/IMPORTANT/SUGGESTION comment prefixes. Use when: reviewing a pull request or diff, deciding how to phrase and prioritise review comments, agreeing review scope with a team. Not for: executing a gated review workflow — that moved to the adoption layer (XSPEC-095); pre-commit gate verification — use /checkin. Keywords: code review, pull request review, review checklist, BLOCKING, comment prefix, 程式碼審查, 審查類別, 評論前綴.
Perform thorough code reviews with security, performance, and maintainability analysis. Use when user asks to review code, check for bugs, or audit a codebase.
The depth half of a review - the dimensions a diff is read against (correctness, boundaries, concurrency, failure paths, secrets, data access, structure, test quality) and the rule that a finding is refuted before it is reported. The verdict stays with the reviewer agent. Use when reviewing a diff or a pull request, or when asked about N+1 queries or wasted round trips.
Use when reviewing a pull request in the deepseek-harness repo — orients the reviewer to this codebase's standards (AGENTS.md conventions, defensive patterns, ADRs, quality gates) and the review-specific checks that code alone can't show
name: code-review
description:
Reviewcode changes using Hyperlane monorepo coding standards. Use when
reviewing PRs, checking your own changes, or doing self-review before committing.
---
# CodeReview Skill
Reviews local changes, an open PR/MR, or a branch diff for bugs, security issues, and violations of the project's own coding guidelines, through review lenses applied inline on a small diff or in parallel agents on a larger one. Excludes style and linter-catchable issues. Read-only: applies fixes or posts PR/MR comments only on explicit approval. For an iterative auto-fix loop, use /optimus:deep review.
Review committed or uncommitted changes along two axes — repository standards and the originating capability contract or change spec. Use for a branch, PR, or work-in-progress review.
Review pull requests to this repo (a Claude Code / Copilot / Cursor platform-engineering skill plugin) for technical accuracy, security posture, structural consistency with existing domains, and completeness. Use this for any PR touching commands/, references/, examples/, skills/platform-skills/SKILL.md, or the plugin catalog files (plugin.json, marketplace.json, COMMANDS.md, HOW_IT_WORKS.md, GETTING_STARTED.md).
name: code-review
type: workflow
description: "Performs architectural and quality codereview checking coding standards, SOLID principles, architectural compliance, and common software issues. Use when reviewing a file or directory
Automated code review with quality checks, security audit, and best practices. Analyzes code for bugs, performance issues, and convention violations. Triggers: code review, review code, check code, analyze code, PR review, 코드 리뷰, 코드 검사, 코드 분석, コードレビュー, コード分析, 代码审查, 代码分析, revision de codigo, revue de code, Code-Review, revisione Do NOT use for: architecture review (use $phase-8-review), deployment (use $phase-9-deployment).
Review a pull request, diff, or set of proposed changes in microsoft/mssql-rs — from a GitHub PR link, a PR number, or local staged/unstaged changes. Use whenever the user asks to review a PR, asks for feedback on a diff, or asks whether changes are ready to merge. Covers correctness, security, tests, readability, performance, API/breaking changes, and mssql-rs repo conventions.
Deep code audit that finds dead wiring, silent failures, unfinished features, placeholder stubs, bloated files, and unnecessary complexity. Produces an actionable report with file:line references grouped by severity. Think of it as a senior dev doing a thorough PR review of the entire codebase. Triggers on: "code review", "audit the code", "review the code", "find dead code", "find placeholders", "check for stubs", "prune the code", "code cleanup", "implementation review", "completeness check", "find unused code".
Adversarially verified multi-dimensional review of a code diff. Runs independent reviewers across language, architecture, QA, technical-lead and regression, the review depth deciding which of them always run, plus devops, security, domain and blast radius (who outside the diff observes the change, from the codebase graph) only when the diff calls for them, then makes two skeptics try to refute every blocker and warning before it reaches you. Use after implementing a change, before opening a PR, or when a diff is high-stakes enough that false positives would waste real time.
6110d agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
A folder with a SKILL.md file: a name, a description of when to use it, and instructions. Claude loads a skill only when the task matches its description.
How do I use one I find here?
Copy the folder into your project's .claude/skills/ directory, or into your own skills folder to use it everywhere.
What do the warnings mean?
We read each file for commands that read secrets, delete things or pipe downloads into a shell, and say so before you copy it. No warning is not a promise that a file is safe.
Which skills worked for people?
Open a skill to see its discussion. Reports from people and their agents are coming.
duongthinh03Skill
