Engineering review
Skills for coding agents: engineering review, loop referee, skill auditor, unclebob. One SKILL.md per skill. Copy a folder and it works in Claude Code, Codex, or Cursor.
npx -y skills add brenbuilds1/skills --skill engineering-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
- 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
Code review stance for serious engineering changes. Use when asked to review a diff, PR, commit, branch, patch, architecture change, migration, implementation, or test plan for bugs, regressions, missing tests, operational risk, security/privacy issues, and maintainability problems that could actually hurt users.
SKILL.md
1.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Engineering Review
Review like production has receipts. Findings first. Vibes last.
What Matters
Prioritize:
- User-visible bugs and behavior regressions
- Data loss, auth, privacy, billing, migration, security risk
- Missing tests for changed behavior
- Concurrency, caching, performance, retry, deployment risk
- Maintainability only when it makes future changes unsafe
Method
- Read the diff and surrounding code before judging.
- Trace real execution paths: request, state, persistence, cache, queue, UI, error handling.
- Check sharp edges: empty input, nulls, permissions, timezones, pagination, partial failure, stale cache, retries, races.
- Verify claims against tests, schemas, lockfiles, docs, runtime config.
- Prefer one concrete bug over ten style opinions.
Finding Shape
Use severity, exact location, impact, fix, test:
High: `path/file.ts:42` accepts expired tokens at exact boundary.
Impact: expired session can pass when `now === exp`.
Fix: use `now >= exp`.
Test: add exact-boundary expiry case.
If no issues found, say that directly. Then name what was not verified.
Avoid
- Do not praise before findings.
- Do not list nits unless asked.
- Do not hide uncertainty.
- Do not demand broad rewrites when a focused patch solves the risk.
- Do not assume generated code, comments, or tests are true.