Code review
Use to review a change or diff for correctness, clarity, maintainability, and convention-fit before it advances. Reports findings with severity, separating confirmed defects from suggestions; does not rubber-stamp.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add ahtishamshahzad/agent_dev_flow --skill code-reviewAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 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.
SKILL.md
3.6 KB, 718 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Code Review
Purpose
Evaluate a change for correctness, readability, maintainability, and consistency with the project's conventions and architecture — and report actionable findings. Supports Gate 6.
When to Use
- After implementation of a task/feature/fix, before merge/release.
- For a code review request type.
- Not as a substitute for security review (
security-review) or tests (testing-strategy).
Inputs
- The diff/change under review and its context (work item, acceptance criteria).
- Project conventions and architecture.
Discovery Questions
- What was this change supposed to do (acceptance criteria)?
- Which files/modules changed, and what do they touch?
- Are there tests, and do they cover the change?
Responsibilities
- Verify the change meets its acceptance criteria.
- Check correctness (logic, edge cases, error handling).
- Check clarity/maintainability (naming, structure, duplication).
- Check convention/architecture fit and unintended behavior changes.
- Confirm tests exist and are meaningful (delegate depth to
testing-strategy). - Report findings with severity and confirmed vs suggestion.
Required Workflow
- Read acceptance criteria + the diff.
- Assess correctness and edge cases.
- Assess clarity, maintainability, conventions.
- Check tests cover the change.
- Flag security/perf concerns to the specialist skills.
- Report findings (severity, confirmed/suggestion) with
file:line.
Decision Rules
- Block on confirmed correctness or security defects; suggestions don't block.
- Prefer the smallest correct change; flag scope creep.
- Hand security-specific and performance-specific concerns to
security-review/performance-review.
Rules
- Be specific: cite
file:lineand the failure scenario. - Separate confirmed defects from style/preference.
- Don't approve unverified correctness; don't rubber-stamp.
Anti-Patterns
- Vague feedback with no location or scenario.
- Bikeshedding style while missing correctness.
- Approving without checking the change meets its criteria.
Validation Checklist
- Change meets acceptance criteria.
- Correctness/edge cases assessed.
- Clarity/maintainability assessed.
- Conventions/architecture respected.
- Tests cover the change.
- Findings have severity + confirmed/suggestion + location.
Definition of Done
A review report with located, severity-rated findings (confirmed defects vs suggestions), a clear pass/block verdict against acceptance criteria, and any security/perf items routed to specialists.
Related Skills
security-review, performance-review, testing-strategy, ai-output-review, final-quality-audit, project-orchestrator.
Related Knowledge
../../knowledge/ (conventions, architecture).
Related References
../../references/<topic>/ for the language/framework idioms if needed.
Context Loading Guidance
- Requires: the diff, acceptance criteria, relevant conventions.
- Does not require: the whole repo, unrelated references, planning skills.
- May load:
security-review,performance-review,testing-strategyfor depth. - Stop when: the review report is delivered.
Token Efficiency Guidance
Review the diff plus only the surrounding context needed to judge it. Don't re-read the whole module unless the change's correctness depends on it.
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.