code-review
Skill1 starsChanged 48 days agoMITView on GitHub
Review a diff, branch or pull request for correctness bugs, security issues and maintainability problems, and report prioritised findings with file and line references. Use when the user asks to review code, check a PR, look for bugs before merging, or asks "what could break".
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 repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- academic-researchSkill
- codebase-auditSkill
- code-documentationSkill
- competitive-analysisSkill
- data-analysisSkill
- email-assistantSkill
- fullstack-dev-teamSkill
- github-integrationSkill
- market-researchSkill
- pdf-analysisSkill
- research-paperSkill
- sql-analysisSkill
- ui-ux-designSkill
- web-researchSkill
- web-searchSkill
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 184 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
- Distinctive: line 26
Before a release, after a large refactor, or when onboarding to unfamiliar code.
- Distinctive: line 31
Understand intent: before judging: what is this change supposed to do?
- Distinctive: line 44
Don't pad: if there are no real issues, say so.
- Distinctive: line 54
Read access to the repository and git.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 184 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.
Files
Code Review
Overview
A focused review procedure that finds problems that matter — bugs, security holes, data loss, broken contracts — before style nits, and explains each finding so the author can act on it.
When to Use
- "Review this PR / diff / branch", "anything wrong with this?", "is this safe to merge?"
- Before a release, after a large refactor, or when onboarding to unfamiliar code.
Usage
- Get the change. For a branch:
git diff <base>...HEAD. For a PR: fetch the diff. Note which files changed and why (PR description, commit messages). - Understand intent before judging: what is this change supposed to do? If unclear, say so — that is itself a finding.
- Read the surrounding code, not just the diff: callers of changed functions, tests, config. Most real bugs are in how new code meets old code.
- Check, in priority order:
- Correctness — logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined, wrong conditions, race conditions, error paths.
- Security — injection, missing auth checks, secrets in code, unsafe deserialisation, path traversal.
- Data safety — migrations, destructive operations, backwards compatibility.
- Contracts — changed function signatures, API responses, config keys; are all callers updated?
- Tests — do tests cover the new behaviour and the failure cases?
- Maintainability — duplication, needless complexity, naming. Keep these brief.
- Report each finding as:
[severity] path/to/file.ext:line — what is wrong → concrete scenario that breaks → suggested fixSeverity: blocker, major, minor, nit. - Lead with a one-line verdict: ready to merge, merge after fixes, or needs rework.
- Don't pad: if there are no real issues, say so.
Examples
Prompt: "Review my branch before I open the PR."
See examples/review-output.md for a complete review in the expected format.
Requirements
- Read access to the repository and
git.
Limitations
- Static reading only unless tests are run separately; runtime behaviour may differ.
- Large diffs (>1,500 lines) should be reviewed in parts.
Changelog
- 1.1.0 — Findings now include a concrete failure scenario; added verdict line.
- 1.0.0 — Initial release.
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.