Review code

Skill gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/skills/review-code

Internal correctness + simplification review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Checks correctness, error handling, duplication, dead code, and simplification opportunities against the project's own conventions. Findings only; never edits code.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-code

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

19 stars19 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 file declares

Copied from the file, not written here

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

2.6 KB, 511 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Review Code (internal)

Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits, never refactors.

Scope

The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.

Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)

✓ No logic errors on the changed paths (trace each modified function's inputs → outputs, including boundary values) ✓ Every error path is handled — no swallowed exceptions, no empty catch, no silently-ignored return codes ✓ No duplicated logic (a changed block does not re-implement an existing helper — cite the existing one if it does) ✓ No dead code introduced (unused functions, params, imports, unreachable branches) ✓ No leftover TODO/FIXME/HACK markers in the diff ✓ Naming and file conventions match the project's docs (read them first; cite the convention violated) ✓ No new abstraction beyond what the SPEC requires (an interface/base class with one implementation is a finding) ✓ No new dependency not justified in the SPEC ✓ Simplification: any changed block that can lose lines without losing behavior (cite before/after) ✓ Edge cases the SPEC's dev scenarios name are actually handled in code, not just in tests

Return exactly

REVIEW CODE — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what>  | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |

Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Decision: PASS | FAIL

FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.

Done when

Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most code review skills give in 511 tokens

Counted across 668 of the 814 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-09-06

Provide technical reasoning when pushing backin 84 of 668, across 70 files
Fix critical issues immediatelyin 77 of 668, across 60 files
Dispatch a code reviewer subagentin 76 of 668, across 59 files
Fix important issues before proceedingin 73 of 668, across 56 files
Ask for clarification on unclear itemsin 68 of 668, across 56 files
Verify feedback against codebase before implementationin 66 of 668, across 55 files
Implement fixes one at a timein 64 of 668, across 53 files
Test each fix individuallyin 62 of 668, across 51 files
Restate technical requirements in own wordsin 57 of 668, across 46 files
Reply to inline comments in the specific threadin 51 of 668, across 40 files
Note minor issues for laterin 49 of 668, across 34 files
Group findings by severityin 48 of 668, across 47 files

Said here and by no other author read

Evaluate every checklist item
State the scope at the top of the table
Trace inputs and outputs for modified functions
Cite existing helpers for duplicated logic
Match project naming and file conventions
Avoid unnecessary abstractions

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.