Code review
Skill eooo-io/ai-native-engineering-doctrine/04-agent-skills/code-review
AI-native engineering harness: doctrine-only, fork-and-curate scaffold for standards, agent skills, tool adapters, and review rubrics.
npx -y skills add eooo-io/ai-native-engineering-doctrine --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.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Review code for correctness, maintainability, security, performance, and test quality.
SKILL.md
0.9 KB, 173 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Code Review
Purpose
Review a code change and produce actionable feedback. The output is concrete enough that the author can fix issues without a follow-up conversation.
Review dimensions
- Correctness
- Readability
- Complexity
- Security
- Performance
- Test quality
- Architecture fit
- Operational risk
Output format
## Summary
## Critical issues
## Suggested improvements
## Tests to add or update
## Questions or assumptions
Rules
- Be specific. "Unclear" is not feedback; quote the line and explain why.
- Explain why each issue matters; consequences anchor priority.
- Prefer fix suggestions or small diffs when the change is mechanical.
- Do not invent project requirements.
- Mark uncertainty clearly. Reviewing is not bluffing.
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most code review skills give in 173 tokens
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 vulnerabilitiesin 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
- Quote specific lines and explain why
- Suggest fixes or small diffs for mechanical 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. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.