agentsclimarketplace

Code review skill

Skill 41Yr9/vibeplus/skills/code-review-skill

コーディング依頼を受け取ってからPull Requestを作成し、得られた知見を次回へ活かすまでを支援するCodexプラグイン

Install
npx -y skills add 41Yr9/vibeplus --skill code-review-skill

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • 25 days oldThe repository was created 25 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
  • 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Provides comprehensive code review guidance for React 19, Vue 3, Angular 17+, Svelte 5, Rust, TypeScript, Java, Java 8, PHP, Python, Django, FastAPI, Go, C#/.NET, Kotlin, Swift, NestJS, C/C++, Zig, CSS/Less/Sass, Qt, and more. Covers architecture review, performance review, security audit, code quality anti-patterns, and common bugs across all ecosystems. Use when: reviewing pull requests, conducting PR reviews, code review, reviewing code changes, establishing review standards, mentoring developers, architecture reviews, security audits, performance reviews, checking code quality, finding bugs, giving feedback on code.

SKILL.md

11.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Code Review Skill

Transform code reviews from gatekeeping to knowledge sharing through constructive feedback, systematic analysis, and collaborative improvement.

When to Use This Skill

  • Reviewing pull requests and code changes
  • Establishing code review standards for teams
  • Mentoring junior developers through reviews
  • Conducting architecture reviews
  • Creating review checklists and guidelines
  • Improving team collaboration
  • Reducing code review cycle time
  • Maintaining code quality standards

Core Principles

1. The Review Mindset

Goals of Code Review:

  • Catch bugs and edge cases
  • Ensure code maintainability
  • Share knowledge across team
  • Enforce coding standards
  • Improve design and architecture
  • Build team culture

Not the Goals:

  • Show off knowledge
  • Nitpick formatting (use linters)
  • Block progress unnecessarily
  • Rewrite to your preference

2. Effective Feedback

Good Feedback is:

  • Specific and actionable
  • Educational, not judgmental
  • Focused on the code, not the person
  • Balanced (praise good work too)
  • Prioritized (critical vs nice-to-have)
❌ Bad: "This is wrong."
✅ Good: "This could cause a race condition when multiple users
         access simultaneously. Consider using a mutex here."

❌ Bad: "Why didn't you use X pattern?"
✅ Good: "Have you considered the Repository pattern? It would
         make this easier to test. Here's an example: [link]"

❌ Bad: "Rename this variable."
✅ Good: "[nit] Consider `userCount` instead of `uc` for
         clarity. Not blocking if you prefer to keep it."

3. Review Scope

What to Review:

  • Logic correctness and edge cases
  • Security vulnerabilities
  • Performance implications
  • Test coverage and quality
  • Error handling
  • Documentation and comments
  • API design and naming
  • Architectural fit

What Not to Review Manually:

  • Code formatting (use Prettier, Black, etc.)
  • Import organization
  • Linting violations
  • Simple typos

Review Process

Phase 1: Context Gathering (2-3 minutes)

Before diving into code, understand:

  1. Read PR description and linked issue
  2. Check PR size (>400 lines? Ask to split)
  3. Review CI/CD status (tests passing?)
  4. Understand the business requirement
  5. Note any relevant architectural decisions

For large diffs, pipe the diff through scripts/pr-analyzer.py (git diff main...HEAD | python scripts/pr-analyzer.py) to triage complexity and get a suggested review approach before reading.

Phase 2: High-Level Review (5-10 minutes)

  1. Architecture & Design - Does the solution fit the problem?
  2. Performance Assessment - Are there performance concerns?
    • For performance-critical code, consult Performance Review Guide
    • Check: Algorithm complexity, N+1 queries, memory usage
  3. File Organization - Are new files in the right places?
  4. Testing Strategy - Are there tests covering edge cases?

Phase 3: Line-by-Line Review (10-20 minutes)

For each file, check:

  • Logic & Correctness - Edge cases, off-by-one, null checks, race conditions
  • Security - Input validation, injection risks, XSS, sensitive data
  • Performance - N+1 queries, unnecessary loops, memory leaks
  • Maintainability - Clear names, single responsibility, comments
  • Reuse - Before accepting new code, search for existing utilities/helpers that could replace it. Check adjacent files and shared modules for similar patterns. See Universal Quality Guide for anti-patterns like parameter sprawl, leaky abstractions, nested conditionals, stringly-typed code, TOCTOU, and no-op updates.

Phase 4: Summary & Decision (2-3 minutes)

  1. Summarize key concerns
  2. Highlight what you liked
  3. Make clear decision:
    • ✅ Approve
    • 💬 Comment (minor suggestions)
    • 🔄 Request Changes (must address)
  4. Offer to pair if complex

Review Techniques

Technique 1: The Checklist Method

Use checklists for consistent reviews. See Security Review Guide for comprehensive security checklist.

Technique 2: The Question Approach

Instead of stating problems, ask questions:

❌ "This will fail if the list is empty."
✅ "What happens if `items` is an empty array?"

❌ "You need error handling here."
✅ "How should this behave if the API call fails?"

Technique 3: Suggest, Don't Command

Use collaborative language:

❌ "You must change this to use async/await"
✅ "Suggestion: async/await might make this more readable. What do you think?"

❌ "Extract this into a function"
✅ "This logic appears in 3 places. Would it make sense to extract it?"

Technique 4: Differentiate Severity

Use labels to indicate priority:

  • 🔴 [blocking] - Must fix before merge
  • 🟡 [important] - Should fix, discuss if disagree
  • 🟢 [nit] - Nice to have, not blocking
  • 💡 [suggestion] - Alternative approach to consider
  • 📚 [learning] - Educational comment, no action needed
  • 🎉 [praise] - Good work, keep it up!

Severity levels: 🔴 / 🟡 / 🟢 are the three severity tiers used as the standard across all guides in this skill — 🔴 blocks the merge, 🟡 should be addressed, 🟢 is optional. The remaining markers (💡 / 📚 / 🎉) are non-blocking annotations.

Language-Specific Guides

根据审查的代码语言,查阅对应的详细指南:

Language/FrameworkReference FileKey Topics
ReactReact GuideHooks, useEffect, React 19 Actions, RSC, Suspense, TanStack Query v5
Vue 3Vue GuideComposition API, 响应性系统, Props/Emits, Watchers, Composables
Angular 17+Angular GuideSignals, Standalone, RxJS, Zoneless, 模板优化, 测试, 路由守卫, HttpInterceptor
RustRust Guide所有权/借用, Unsafe 审查, 异步代码, 取消安全性, 错误处理
TypeScriptTypeScript Guide类型安全, async/await, 不可变性, 测试, 模块解析, TS 5.x
PythonPython Guide可变默认参数, 异常处理, 类属性
Django / DRFDjango Guide安全审查, N+1 查询, Serializer 反模式, ViewSet, 异步视图
FastAPIFastAPI GuideDepends, Pydantic v2 validation, async correctness, sessions/N+1, auth vs authorization, test-driven verification
JavaJava GuideJava 17/21 新特性, Spring Boot 3, 虚拟线程, Stream/Optional
Java 8 / LegacyJava 8 GuideJava 8, Spring Boot 2, javax.*, Stream/Optional, java.time, CompletableFuture
PHPPHP GuidePHP 8.x type system, PDO, security review, Composer, PHPUnit/PHPStan
C# / .NETC# GuideC# 12 特性, 异步编程, EF Core 性能, ASP.NET Core, LINQ
GoGo Guide错误处理, goroutine/channel, context, 接口设计
Kotlin / AndroidKotlin Guide协程, Flow, Jetpack Compose, 空安全, 内存泄漏, 架构模式
Swift / SwiftUISwift GuideOptionals, Swift Concurrency, Sendable/actors, SwiftUI property wrappers, value vs reference types, API design
NestJSNestJS Guide依赖注入, 分层架构, DTO 验证, Guard/Interceptor, 循环依赖
Svelte / SvelteKitSvelte GuideRunes, Load 函数, Form Actions, Store 迁移, SSR/CSR 边界
CC Guide指针/缓冲区, 内存安全, UB, 安全编码, 可移植性, 测试
C++C++ GuideRAII, 智能指针, C++20/23, constexpr, 测试
ZigZig GuideAllocators, error unions, defer/errdefer, comptime, C interop
CSS/Less/SassCSS Guide变量规范, !important, 性能优化, 响应式, 兼容性
QtQt Guide对象模型, 信号/槽, Model/View, QML, Qt6 迁移, 测试

Cross-Cutting Guides

Language-agnostic patterns applicable to all code reviews:

TopicReference FileKey Topics
Architecture ReviewArchitecture Review GuideSOLID, anti-patterns, coupling/cohesion, dependency direction
Performance ReviewPerformance Review GuideWeb Vitals, N+1, algorithm complexity, memory leaks, caching
Security ReviewSecurity Review GuideSQLi, XSS, CSRF, SSRF, IDOR, 命令注入, 跨语言示例
Universal QualityUniversal Quality GuideReuse audit, parameter sprawl, leaky abstractions, nested conditionals, stringly-typed code, TOCTOU, no-op updates, redundant state
Common BugsCommon Bugs ChecklistLanguage-specific bug patterns, common pitfalls
SQL Injection PreventionSQL Injection GuideParameterized queries, ORM safety, 6 languages, dynamic identifiers, detection
XSS PreventionXSS Prevention GuideOutput encoding, CSP, 5 frameworks, input validation vs encoding, detection
N+1 QueriesN+1 Queries GuideEager loading, batch fetching, DataLoader, 5 languages, detection
Error HandlingError Handling GuideFail fast, error hierarchy, 7 languages, anti-patterns, logging
Async & ConcurrencyConcurrency GuideGoroutines, async/await, actors, structured concurrency, 7 languages
Review Best PracticesCode Review Best PracticesCommunication, reviewer mindset, giving feedback, severity labels

Additional Resources

Gives 1 of the 12 instructions most code review skills give

Counted across 610 of the 674 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06

  • push back with technical reasoning if wrongin 60 of 610, across 24 files
  • ask for clarification on unclear itemsin 51 of 610, across 16 files
  • fix critical issues immediatelyin 45 of 610, across 29 files
  • implement one item at a timein 45 of 610, across 11 files
  • group findings by severityin 44 of 610, across 43 files
  • verify feedback against the codebasein 42 of 610, across 8 files
  • dispatch a code reviewer subagentin 39 of 610, across 23 files
  • fix important issues before proceedingin 37 of 610, across 22 files
  • test each fix individuallyin 35 of 610, across 7 files
  • reply in github comment threadsin 33 of 610, across 5 files
  • check for security vulnerabilitieshere, and in 31 of 610, across 27 files
  • factualize corrections without over-explainingin 30 of 610, across 2 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • read the description and linked issue
  • check the test suite status
  • understand the business requirement
  • assess performance implications
  • offer to pair on complex changes

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.