Code review
Skill charlieviettq/awesome-agent-skill/.cursor/skills/knowledge-work/engineering/code-review
Curated skill pack for LLM agents in engineer and science workflow (Cursor & Claude ready).
npx -y skills add charlieviettq/awesome-agent-skill --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
- 22 stars22 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
Review code changes for security, performance, and correctness. Trigger with a PR URL or diff, "review this before I merge", "is this code safe?", or when checking a change for N+1 queries, injection risks, missing edge cases, or error handling gaps.
SKILL.md
4.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
/code-review
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Review code changes with a structured lens on security, performance, correctness, and maintainability.
Usage
/code-review <PR URL or file path>
Review the provided code changes: @$1
If no specific file or URL is provided, ask what to review.
How It Works
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CODE REVIEW │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ STANDALONE (always works) │
│ ✓ Paste a diff, PR URL, or point to files │
│ ✓ Security audit (OWASP top 10, injection, auth) │
│ ✓ Performance review (N+1, memory leaks, complexity) │
│ ✓ Correctness (edge cases, error handling, race conditions) │
│ ✓ Style (naming, structure, readability) │
│ ✓ Actionable suggestions with code examples │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ SUPERCHARGED (when you connect your tools) │
│ + Source control: Pull PR diff automatically │
│ + Project tracker: Link findings to tickets │
│ + Knowledge base: Check against team coding standards │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Review Dimensions
Security
- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
- Authentication and authorization flaws
- Secrets or credentials in code
- Insecure deserialization
- Path traversal
- SSRF
Performance
- N+1 queries
- Unnecessary memory allocations
- Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths)
- Missing database indexes
- Unbounded queries or loops
- Resource leaks
Correctness
- Edge cases (empty input, null, overflow)
- Race conditions and concurrency issues
- Error handling and propagation
- Off-by-one errors
- Type safety
Maintainability
- Naming clarity
- Single responsibility
- Duplication
- Test coverage
- Documentation for non-obvious logic
Output
## Code Review: [PR title or file]
### Summary
[1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall quality]
### Critical Issues
| # | File | Line | Issue | Severity |
|---|------|------|-------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | 🔴 Critical |
### Suggestions
| # | File | Line | Suggestion | Category |
|---|------|------|------------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | Performance |
### What Looks Good
- [Positive observations]
### Verdict
[Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]
If Connectors Available
If ~~source control is connected:
- Pull the PR diff automatically from the URL
- Check CI status and test results
If ~~project tracker is connected:
- Link findings to related tickets
- Verify the PR addresses the stated requirements
If ~~knowledge base is connected:
- Check changes against team coding standards and style guides
Tips
- Provide context — "This is a hot path" or "This handles PII" helps me focus.
- Specify concerns — "Focus on security" narrows the review.
- Include tests — I'll check test coverage and quality too.