Review the current diff, or a PR number/branch/path target, for correctness bugs (plus reuse/simplification/efficiency cleanups where the model's review recipe covers them) at the given effort level (low/medium: fewer, high-confidence findings; high→max: broader coverage, may include uncertain findings); with no level given, it follows the session's effort (/effort). Pass --comment to post findings as inline PR comments, or --fix to apply the findings to the working tree after the review.
Review PR, branch, commit or working-tree changes for concrete defects and fidelity to intended behavior. Also use when explicitly asked to independently challenge a prepared plan, diagnosis or verification claim.
Code review by several models at once — Claude sub-agents, OpenAI Codex, and a cheap third reviewer via OpenCode — reconciled into one report. Reviews whatever is named: a diff, a branch, specific files, one function, a legacy module, a whole repo. Use for any review request, a second or third opinion, a cross-check before a PR, or "code-review", "multi", "consensus review".
Use when asked to review a diff, PR or uncommitted change for correctness and regressions. Not OWASP/authz -> security-review. Not deleting extras -> kill-slop.
name: code-reviewer
description:
Use this skill to reviewcode. It supports both local changes (staged or working tree)
and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). It focuses
109k6mo agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Internal correctness + simplification review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Checks correctness, error handling, duplication, dead code, and simplification opportunities against the project's own conventions. Findings only; never edits code.
2240d agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Review pull requests in adrkit for actionable defects and conflicts with governing architecture decisions. Use during Copilot code review to inspect changed paths, retrieve relevant ADR context through the adrkit MCP server, and produce evidence-backed inline findings.
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, PR, or merge-base) on two axes — Standards (does it follow this repo's documented rules?) and Spec (does it do what the originating issue asked?). Each axis returns a verdict per enumerated item rather than an open-ended list of findings, so a round terminates. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, working-tree changes, or asks to "review since X"; and again after fixes, to review the fix.
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security).
Review a PR or local changes with risk-based read-only reviewers, verify findings, and check the change against its project's spec and plan. Use when reviewing a remote PR or local code, including unpushed or uncommitted changes. Pass --plan=<path> to name the plan or task list.
Six-dimension code review of a phase's changes: service delegation, framework standards, ADR compliance, plan sync, coding standards and general quality. Returns a binary PASS or NEEDS_CHANGES verdict with every finding classed BLOCKING, RECOMMENDATION or NOTE. Used by implement-phase as its Step 4 quality gate, or manually to review a set of changes against the project's own standards and ADRs. Invoked as devflow:code-review; Claude Code's built-in /code-review is a different, bug-focused review of the current diff. For a hostile multi-persona review use adversarial-reviewer; for security depth use devflow:security-review.
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along three axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo''s documented coding standards?), Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?), and Adversarial (how does the change fail in production?). Runs each axis in an independent host reader and applies the repository external-peer policy. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".
Performs an architectural and quality code review on a specified file or set of files. Checks for coding standard compliance, architectural pattern adherence, SOLID principles, testability, and performance concerns.
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.