agentleFS
viknesh20-20viknesh20-20/claude-code-tool-kit/.claude/skills/review-pr/SKILL.md

review-pr

Skill7 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Performs a comprehensive pull request code review covering correctness, security, performance, test coverage, and coding standards. Use when reviewing any code changes before merge.

185 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use diagnose-ci-failures, docs-loop 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.
  • zerx-labSkill

    diagnose-ci-failures

    Diagnose CI failures for a PR using the GitHub CLI, extract error logs, and generate a plan to fix them. Use when the user asks to check CI status, pull CI issues, triage test failures, or investigate PR build failures.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • GeiserXSkill

    docs-loop

    Use when the user asks to audit docs, check documentation for stale claims, or verify docs against the code.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • GeiserXSkill

    full-loop

    Drive a repository to done with sergio-loop, then keep improving it with refine-loop at a descending theta. Use only when the user explicitly invokes full-loop.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • n24q02mSkill

    review-delta

    Review only changes since last commit using impact analysis. Token-efficient delta review with automatic blast-radius detection.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • n24q02mSkill

    build-graph

    Build or update the code review knowledge graph. Run this first to initialize, or let hooks keep it updated automatically.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +7 more from GeiserX

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 178 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Do test names clearly describe the scenario?

    line 60

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 178 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Pull Request Code Review

Gather Context

Changed Files

!git diff --name-only HEAD~1 2>/dev/null || echo "No commits to diff"

Diff Summary

!git diff --stat HEAD~1 2>/dev/null || echo "No diff available"

Full Diff

!git diff HEAD~1 2>/dev/null | head -500

Recent Commits

!git log --oneline -10 2>/dev/null


Review Checklist

Analyze every changed file against the following categories. For each finding, provide:

  • File path and line number
  • Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low
  • Description of the issue
  • Suggested fix with code snippet

1. Correctness

  • Logic errors or off-by-one mistakes
  • Missing null/undefined/nil checks
  • Incomplete error handling
  • Race conditions or concurrency issues
  • Incorrect use of APIs or library functions

2. Security

  • Input validation gaps (SQL injection, XSS, command injection, path traversal)
  • Hardcoded secrets, tokens, or credentials
  • Authentication/authorization bypass risks
  • Insecure data handling (PII exposure, logging sensitive data)
  • Missing CSRF/CORS protections where applicable

3. Performance

  • N+1 query patterns
  • Unnecessary loops or redundant computations
  • Missing pagination for unbounded queries
  • Blocking operations in async contexts
  • Large memory allocations in hot paths
  • Missing indexes for new database queries

4. Test Coverage

  • Are new code paths covered by tests?
  • Are edge cases and error paths tested?
  • Are mocks appropriate and not over-mocking?
  • Do test names clearly describe the scenario?

5. Code Quality

  • Readability and naming clarity
  • Unnecessary complexity that can be simplified
  • Code duplication that should be extracted
  • Dead code or unused imports
  • Missing or misleading comments

6. Conventions

  • Adherence to project coding standards (check CLAUDE.md)
  • Consistent formatting and style
  • Proper commit message format
  • Documentation for public APIs

Output Format

Findings

Group findings by severity:

Critical (must fix before merge)

<!-- Blocking issues -->

High (strongly recommend fixing)

<!-- Significant issues -->

Medium (should fix)

<!-- Moderate issues -->

Low (nice to have)

<!-- Minor suggestions -->

Summary

Provide a 2-3 sentence executive summary of the PR quality.

Verdict

State one of:

  • GO — Ready to merge (no critical/high issues)
  • CONDITIONAL GO — Merge after addressing critical/high findings
  • NO-GO — Significant issues require rework before re-review

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.