Code Reviewer

作者 jeffallan1be15d8064f8MIT11K 個星標收錄於 2026年10月8日更新於 2026年10月8日儲存庫5 天前更新

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.

AI 產生的概覽

審查程式碼差異與檔案,找出缺陷、安全性問題與設計問題,並產出依優先順序排列的審查報告。

功能
此技能引導代理進行結構化程式碼審查:先理解變更的意圖,再檢視架構與設計,接著審查程式碼品質、安全性與效能,並驗證測試。它會運用審查清單、常見問題、回饋寫法、規格符合性與接收回饋等參考資料。最終產出是一份分類報告,包含摘要、重大問題、主要問題、次要問題、正面回饋、向作者提出的問題以及結論。
適用情境
適用於審查提取要求、進行程式碼品質稽核、尋找重構機會或檢查安全性弱點。它著重於一次涵蓋正確性、效能、可維護性與測試涵蓋率的廣範圍審查。
執行需求
僅需代理的 Read、Grep 與 Glob 工具;不需要指令碼、套件、憑證或網路存取。技能在 references/ 下附帶六份參考文件。

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

來源與署名

來源:jeffallan/claude-skills位於skills/code-reviewer提交1be15d8

授權條款: MIT

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架