Code Reviewer

by jeffallan1be15d8064f8MIT11K starsListed Oct 8, 2026Updated Oct 8, 2026Repository updated 5 days ago

Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, insecure deserialization), code smells, N+1 queries, naming issues, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code quality audits, identifying refactoring opportunities, or checking for security issues. Invoke for PR reviews, code quality checks, refactoring suggestions, review code, code quality. Complements specialized skills (security-reviewer, test-master) by providing broad-scope review across correctness, performance, maintainability, and test coverage in a single pass.

Instructions onlySoftware Development
AI-generated overview

Reviews code diffs and files for bugs, security issues, and design problems, producing a prioritized review report.

What it does
This skill guides an agent through a structured code review: understanding the change's intent, examining architecture and design, checking code quality, security, and performance, and validating tests. It applies reference material on review checklists, common issues, feedback style, spec compliance, and receiving feedback. The deliverable is a categorized report covering summary, critical, major, and minor issues, positive feedback, questions for the author, and a verdict.
When to use it
Use it when reviewing pull requests, auditing code quality, looking for refactoring opportunities, or checking for security vulnerabilities. It is intended for broad-scope review across correctness, performance, maintainability, and test coverage in a single pass.
Requirements
Requires only the agent's Read, Grep, and Glob tools; no scripts, packages, credentials, or network access are needed. It ships six reference documents under references/.

Code Reviewer

Senior engineer conducting thorough, constructive code reviews that improve quality and share knowledge.

When to Use This Skill

  • Reviewing pull requests
  • Conducting code quality audits
  • Identifying refactoring opportunities
  • Checking for security vulnerabilities
  • Validating architectural decisions

Core Workflow

  1. Context — Read PR description, understand the problem being solved. Checkpoint: Summarize the PR's intent in one sentence before proceeding. If you cannot, ask the author to clarify.
  2. Structure — Review architecture and design decisions. Ask: Does this follow existing patterns in the codebase? Are new abstractions justified?
  3. Details — Check code quality, security, and performance. Apply the checks in the Reference Guide below. Ask: Are there N+1 queries, hardcoded secrets, or injection risks?
  4. Tests — Validate test coverage and quality. Ask: Are edge cases covered? Do tests assert behavior, not implementation?
  5. Feedback — Produce a categorized report using the Output Template. If critical issues are found in step 3, note them immediately and do not wait until the end.

Disagreement handling: If the author has left comments explaining a non-obvious choice, acknowledge their reasoning before suggesting an alternative. Never block on style preferences when a linter or formatter is configured.

Reference Guide

Load detailed guidance based on context:

<!-- Spec Compliance and Receiving Feedback rows adapted from obra/superpowers by Jesse Vincent (@obra), MIT License -->
TopicReferenceLoad When
Review Checklistreferences/review-checklist.mdStarting a review, categories
Common Issuesreferences/common-issues.mdN+1 queries, magic numbers, patterns
Feedback Examplesreferences/feedback-examples.mdWriting good feedback
Report Templatereferences/report-template.mdWriting final review report
Spec Compliancereferences/spec-compliance-review.mdReviewing implementations, PR review, spec verification
Receiving Feedbackreferences/receiving-feedback.mdResponding to review comments, handling feedback

Review Patterns (Quick Reference)

N+1 Query — Bad vs Good

python
# BAD: query inside loopfor user in users:    orders = Order.objects.filter(user=user)  # N+1
# GOOD: prefetch in bulkusers = User.objects.prefetch_related('orders').all()

Magic Number — Bad vs Good

python
# BADif status == 3:    ...
# GOODORDER_STATUS_SHIPPED = 3if status == ORDER_STATUS_SHIPPED:    ...

Security: SQL Injection — Bad vs Good

python
# BAD: string interpolation in querycursor.execute(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}")
# GOOD: parameterized querycursor.execute("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = %s", [user_id])

Constraints

MUST DO

  • Summarize PR intent before reviewing (see Workflow step 1)
  • Provide specific, actionable feedback
  • Include code examples in suggestions
  • Praise good patterns
  • Prioritize feedback (critical → minor)
  • Review tests as thoroughly as code
  • Check for security issues (OWASP Top 10 as baseline)

MUST NOT DO

  • Be condescending or rude
  • Nitpick style when linters exist
  • Block on personal preferences
  • Demand perfection
  • Review without understanding the why
  • Skip praising good work

Output Template

Code review report must include:

  1. Summary — One-sentence intent recap + overall assessment
  2. Critical issues — Must fix before merge (bugs, security, data loss)
  3. Major issues — Should fix (performance, design, maintainability)
  4. Minor issues — Nice to have (naming, readability)
  5. Positive feedback — Specific patterns done well
  6. Questions for author — Clarifications needed
  7. Verdict — Approve / Request Changes / Comment

Knowledge Reference

SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, design patterns, OWASP Top 10, language idioms, testing patterns

Maintained by @jeffallan, Principal Consultant at Synergetic Solutions

Documentation

Source and attribution

Source:jeffallan/claude-skillsinskills/code-reviewerat commit1be15d8

License: MIT

Content belongs to its original authors. SourceWeft indexes it from a public repository.

Report or request removal