code-review
Skill0 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Code review process, effective feedback, PR best practices, team working agreements, review automation, AI-augmented review, and review antipatterns. Use when reviewing code, preparing PRs, giving review feedback, setting up review processes, writing review comments, or conducting code reviews during serve phase.
194 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- doggy8088/spec-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- strelov1/freehiretheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- storybookjs/storybooktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- supabase/supabasetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- The-Vibe-Company/quivrtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
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.
dzhngSkillclose-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
PydanticSkilladd-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-bullshitSkillcompare-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 AzureSkillazsdk-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
Other versions194 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 194
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- TheAlgorithms/Python★ 226ksame name
- microsoft/vscode★ 195ksame name
- github/spec-kit★ 149ksame name
- ggml-org/llama.cpp★ 134ksame name
- supabase/supabase★ 115ksame name
- storybookjs/storybook★ 91ksame name
- shareAI-lab/analysis_claude_code★ 80ksame name
- shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code★ 80ksame name
- vectorize-io/hindsight★ 60ksame name
184 more not listed
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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- code-antipatternsSkill
- code-namingSkill
- code-plan-auditSkill
- code-pruningSkill
- code-quality-foundationsSkill
- code-readabilitySkill
- code-scope-boundariesSkill
- code-testing-qualitySkill
- code-yagniSkill
- error-handling-patternsSkill
- refactoring-patternsSkill
- software-tradeoffsSkill
The file
Files
Code Review
Review Goals (Priority Order)
| Goal | What You're Checking | Time Allocation |
| Correctness | Does it work? Edge cases, off-by-ones, null handling | 40% |
| Design | Right abstractions? Fits the architecture? | 25% |
| Security | Auth, input validation, data exposure, injection | 15% |
| Maintainability | Readable? Testable? Future-developer-friendly? | 15% |
| Style | Naming, formatting, conventions | 5% (automate this) |
Effective Comment Templates (Triple-R Pattern)
| Component | Purpose | Example |
| Request | What to change | "Can we rename item to something more descriptive?" |
| Rationale | Why it matters | "item is vague and doesn't convey its role in discount calculation." |
| Result | What good looks like | "Something like discountEligibleItem captures the context." |
Comment Severity Labels
| Label | Meaning | Author Action |
| blocker | Must fix before merge | Address or discuss |
| suggestion | Improvement worth considering | Decide and respond |
| nitpick | Minor style/preference | Optional — take or leave |
| question | Need to understand intent | Explain the reasoning |
| praise | Something done well | Acknowledge (builds trust) |
Team Working Agreement (TWA) Template
| Area | Questions to Answer |
| Response time | How quickly should reviews start? (e.g., within 4 business hours) |
| Review depth | What's expected? (checklist-based? architecture-level?) |
| PR size limits | Maximum lines? When must PRs be split? |
| Approval policy | How many approvals to merge? Who can approve? |
| Comment conventions | Which severity labels? Required vs. optional feedback? |
| Automation baseline | What's automated? (linting, formatting, security scans) |
| Escalation | What if reviewer and author disagree? |
| Exceptions | Emergency/hotfix bypass process? |
Review Antipatterns
| Antipattern | Symptom | Fix |
| Rubber-stamping | "LGTM" without reading the code | Require specific comment on at least one aspect |
| Nitpicking | 20 comments about spacing, zero about logic | Automate style; focus comments on design |
| Gatekeeping | One person blocks all merges with personal preferences | TWA defines objective standards; rotate reviewers |
| Ghost reviewing | Review assigned, no response for days | SLA with escalation; review rotation |
| Bike-shedding | Lengthy debate on trivial decisions | Time-box discussions; "author decides" for preferences |
| Drive-by reviewing | Comments without context or follow-up | Require summary; follow up on requested changes |
| Scope creep | "While you're here, can you also..." | New work gets its own PR and ticket |
| Approval hoarding | Requiring 4+ approvals "for safety" | 1-2 approvals with clear ownership |
AI-Augmented Review (2025-2026)
| Concern | What AI Catches Well | What Needs Human Judgment |
| Bugs | Null derefs, off-by-ones, resource leaks | Business logic correctness |
| Style | Inconsistencies, formatting | Naming quality, abstraction appropriateness |
| Security | Injection, XSS, auth issues | Threat model fit |
| Coverage | Missing test coverage | Test quality |
| Architecture | Duplication across files | Whether the code solves the right problem |
AI-generated code requires more review rigor: 1.75x more logic errors than human code, 45% contain security vulnerabilities. Authors must understand and explain every line.
Decision Tables
"What Should I Focus on in This Review?"
| Signal | Focus Area |
| New contributor's PR | Correctness + mentoring |
| Touches auth/payments/security | Security-first review |
| Large refactoring | Design + test coverage |
| Bug fix | Correctness + regression tests |
| AI-generated code | Everything + extra scrutiny |
"Should I Approve This PR?"
| Condition | Decision |
| All blockers addressed, tests pass, design is sound | Approve |
| Minor nitpicks only | Approve with comments |
| Design concerns but implementation is correct | Request changes |
| Missing tests for new behavior | Request changes |
| Too large to review effectively | Request split |
Reviewer Checklist
- PR description explains intent clearly
- Changes are appropriately scoped (single concern)
- Logic handles edge cases and error paths
- New behavior has test coverage
- No security concerns (auth, injection, data exposure)
- Naming and abstractions fit the codebase
- Comments use severity labels (blocker/suggestion/nitpick)
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.