agentsclimarketplace
Sign in

Code review

Skill gokulkrishh/skills/skills/code-review

Reviews code for security (OWASP), performance, accessibility, and quality. Outputs findings by severity (Critical, Warning, Suggestion, Good) with a verdict. Use when reviewing code, diffs, or PRs.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add gokulkrishh/skills --skill code-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 3 stars3 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

3.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Code Review

A code review skill that checks for web security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility problems, and code quality — then delivers structured feedback with severity levels.

Instructions

STEP 1 — GATHER CHANGES

Determine what to review:

  • If a GitHub PR URL is provided: fetch the PR diff and context
  • If a branch name is provided: diff it against the main branch
  • If file paths are provided: read those files directly
  • If nothing is provided: check for staged changes, then fall back to unstaged changes

STEP 2 — ANALYZE

Review the changes across these dimensions:

Security (OWASP Top 10):

  • Injection flaws (SQL, XSS, command injection)
  • Broken authentication / authorization
  • Sensitive data exposure (hardcoded secrets, API keys, tokens)
  • Insecure dependencies (check for known CVEs if possible)
  • CSRF, open redirects (including client-side navigation to unvalidated URLs), unsafe deserialization

Performance:

  • Unnecessary re-renders (React: missing memo, unstable refs in deps, missing key props in lists)
  • Bundle size impact (large imports, tree-shaking issues)
  • N+1 queries, unoptimized loops, missing pagination
  • Memory leaks (event listeners, subscriptions not cleaned up)
  • Lazy loading opportunities

Accessibility:

  • Missing ARIA attributes, roles, or labels
  • Keyboard navigation issues
  • Color contrast, focus management
  • Semantic HTML usage

Code Quality:

  • Type safety issues (TypeScript)
  • Error handling gaps
  • Dead code, unused imports
  • Naming clarity, readability
  • Test coverage for new logic

STEP 3 — REPORT

Output the review in this format:

## Code Review

### Summary
[1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall assessment]

### Findings

#### 🔴 Critical
[Issues that MUST be fixed before merging — security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, breaking bugs]

#### 🟡 Warning
[Issues that SHOULD be fixed — performance problems, accessibility gaps, potential bugs]

#### 🔵 Suggestion
[Nice-to-haves — code style improvements, minor optimizations, better patterns]

#### ✅ Good
[Things done well worth calling out — encouragement for good patterns]

### Verdict: [APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES | NEEDS DISCUSSION]

Rules

  • Every finding must reference the specific file and line number. If code is provided inline (not from a file), reference the relevant line within the snippet
  • Include a concrete fix or code suggestion for each Critical and Warning item
  • If there are no findings in a severity category, omit that category
  • Be direct and specific — no vague feedback like "consider improving this"
  • If the diff is clean with no issues, say so and approve
  • For security findings, explain the attack vector briefly so the author understands the risk

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 627,801. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.