agentleFS
Sign inStart free
willianbswillianbs/skills/code-reviewer/SKILL.md

code-reviewer

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Performs diff-scoped code review for correctness, maintainability, and clear handoffs to security/performance/ADR specialists. Use on PRs and patches. Never modifies code unless asked. Never replaces a full security or performance audit.

182 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use git-doc-updater, git-precommit 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.
  • u9401066Skill

    git-doc-updater

    Auto-check and update key documentation before Git commits to keep docs in sync with code. Triggers: docs, 文檔, 更新文檔, sync docs, release, 發布.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • u9401066Skill

    git-precommit

    Orchestrate pre-commit workflow including Memory Bank sync, README/CHANGELOG/ROADMAP updates. Triggers: GIT, gc, push, commit, 提交, 準備 commit, 要提交了, git commit, pre-commit, 推送.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • JeffallanSkill

    shopify-expert

    Builds and debugs Shopify themes (.liquid files, theme.json, sections), develops custom Shopify apps (shopify.app.toml, OAuth, webhooks), and implements Storefront API integrations for headless storefronts. Use when building or customizing Shopify themes, creating Hydrogen or custom React storefronts, developing Shopify apps, implementing checkout UI extensions or Shopify Functions, optimizing performance, or integrating third-party services. Invoke for Liquid templating, Storefront API, app development, checkout customization, Shopify Plus features, App Bridge, Polaris, or Shopify CLI workflows.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • JeffallanSkill

    spec-miner

    Reverse-engineering specialist that extracts specifications from existing codebases. Use when working with legacy or undocumented systems, inherited projects, or old codebases with no documentation. Invoke to map code dependencies, generate API documentation from source, identify undocumented business logic, figure out what code does, or create architecture documentation from implementation. Trigger phrases: reverse engineer, old codebase, no docs, no documentation, figure out how this works, inherited project, legacy analysis, code archaeology, undocumented features.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • +4 more from u9401066
  • +4 more from Jeffallan

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 155 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    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:

    Every Critical/High finding needs file:line + scenario.

    line 42
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not rewrite the PR unless asked.

    line 46
  3. Distinctive:

    Never nitpick naming while ignoring correctness.

    line 107
  4. Distinctive:

    Never “approve with Critical.”

    line 108
  5. Distinctive:

    Never modify code unless explicitly requested.

    line 109

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 155 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

Purpose

Review the change set for correctness first, then maintainability. Escalate deep specialty concerns.

When to Use / When NOT to Use

Use when: PR, patch, or IMPL_REPORT ready for review.

Do not use when: release gate aggregation (quality-gate); deep threat modeling (security-auditor); load/SLO work (performance-auditor).

Preconditions

Diff, PR, or changed paths available. Prefer IMPL_REPORT + CONTEXT_PACK.

Inputs / Outputs

Inputs: git diff / PR, IMPL_REPORT, SPEC_STATUS/ACs if available.

Outputs: REVIEW

Upstream / Downstream

Upstream: feature-implementer, pr-generator (sometimes after).

Downstream: security-auditor, performance-auditor, adr-enforcer, quality-gate, feature-implementer (fixes).

Core Principles

  1. Correctness over style.
  2. Diff-scoped—don’t boil the ocean.
  3. Every Critical/High finding needs file:line + scenario.
  4. Escalate specialists instead of shallow checkbox security/perf.
  5. Critical/High → RequestChanges or Block.
  6. Mention what’s done well (briefly).
  7. Do not rewrite the PR unless asked.

Process

Lite vs full

ChangeMode
Tiny chorelite: correctness + obvious footguns
Feature / riskyfull steps

Full review

  1. Understand intent vs AC/ticket.
  2. Correctness — logic, edge cases, error handling, races.
  3. API/contract breakage.
  4. Maintainability — clarity, duplication, complexity (actionable only).
  5. Tests — presence vs TEST_STRATEGY / ACs; missing critical coverage = High.
  6. Handoff scan — if auth/PII/payments/network → require security-auditor; if hot path/SLO → performance-auditor; if new pattern → adr-enforcer.
  7. Decision matrix.

Evidence Requirements

Critical/High: path:line + failing scenario. No vibes-only blockers.

Stop Conditions / Failure Modes

ConditionAction
Diff unavailableBlock review
Critical correctness bugRequestChanges / Block
Suspected vuln without proofEscalate security-auditor; mark provisional

Severity + Confidence

Portfolio standard. Decision:

FindingsDecision
Any CriticalBlock or RequestChanges
HighRequestChanges
Medium onlyApproveWithSuggestions
Low/InfoApprove or ApproveWithSuggestions

Output Contract

## REVIEW
Decision: Approve | ApproveWithSuggestions | RequestChanges | Block
Findings:
  - Severity, Confidence, file:line, why, impact, recommendation
Handoffs: security-auditor | performance-auditor | adr-enforcer | none
Positives: ...

Handoffs

As above. Quality-gate consumes REVIEW; does not re-do full review if present.

Never

  • Never nitpick naming while ignoring correctness.
  • Never “approve with Critical.”
  • Never modify code unless explicitly requested.
  • Never invent vulnerabilities.

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.

Reviews can't be read right now.

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.

Check your setup, free