Reviewing code
Skill alexei-led/cc-thingz/dist/claude/dev-flow/skills/reviewing-code
Portable skills, agents, hooks, and Pi extensions for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Copilot, Cursor, Grok, and Pi.
npx -y skills add alexei-led/cc-thingz --skill reviewing-codeAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
SKILL.md
2.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Code Review
Platform workflow additions
Track phases with TaskCreate and TaskUpdate when available:
- Scope resolved.
- References loaded.
- Evidence gathered.
- Findings consolidated.
- Report emitted.
Arguments
If $ARGUMENTS is passed, interpret these keywords:
quick: changed lines plus direct context; security and correctness only.deep: all dimensions from the host skill.team: parallel reviewer sub-tasks, then one consolidated report.external: second-model or external-AI review; only when explicitly requested.
Default is standard. Never run external implicitly.
Scope prompt
When scope is missing, use AskUserQuestion with header Review scope and these options:
- Uncommitted changes.
- Branch compared to default branch.
- Specific files or PR diff supplied by the user.
Team mode
Run sub-tasks as the read-only reviewer role. Split by review dimension or file group. Each sub-task must use the host skill's severity rubric and return only evidence-backed findings.
Consolidate before reporting:
- Deduplicate by
file:lineplus claim. - Keep the highest severity only when the evidence matches the rubric.
- Move unsupported or disputed claims to Needs review.
- Prefix confirmed findings with
[Flagged by: <dimension or file group>]only when it helps explain coverage.
External mode
When external is requested, spawn configured external reviewer bridges in parallel if available. Do not depend on a specific bridge or model.
Report the result explicitly:
External review: completedwhen it ran.External review: unavailablewhen no bridge exists.External review: skippedwhen privacy, missing scope, or tooling prevents it.
Apply the host severity rubric to external output. Do not include external claims as confirmed findings unless the local review can verify the evidence.
Historical context
If memory search is available, query past observations for files in scope. Use it only to avoid repeating already-litigated findings. Do not treat memory as evidence for a new finding.