Code reviewer

精选 Claude Code , Open Code等Agent Skills 合集，覆盖 Agent/Skill 工程化、后端架构、事件驱动、CI/CD、前端设计、文档办公自动化与可视化创作

Install

npx -y skills add HK-hub/AgentSkills --skill code-reviewer

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

6 stars6 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.

3.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests.

Remote PR: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR.
Local Changes: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes).

Checkout: Use the GitHub CLI to checkout the PR.
```
gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER>
```
Preflight: Execute the project's standard verification suite to catch automated failures early.
```
npm run preflight
```
Context: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history.

Identify Changes:
- Check status: git status
- Read diffs: git diff (working tree) and/or git diff --staged (staged).
Preflight (Optional): If the changes are substantial, ask the user if they want to run npm run preflight before reviewing.

Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars:

Correctness: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors?
Maintainability: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to understand and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns.
Readability: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines?
Efficiency: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes?
Security: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices?
Edge Cases and Error Handling: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors?
Testability: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (even if preflight checks pass)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness.

Summary: A high-level overview of the review.
Findings:
- Critical: Bugs, security issues, or breaking changes.
- Improvements: Suggestions for better code quality or performance.
- Nitpicks: Formatting or minor style issues (optional).
Conclusion: Clear recommendation (Approved / Request Changes).

After the review, ask the user if they want to switch back to the default branch (e.g., main or master).