agentsclimarketplace

Code review

Skill JoaoAlavarse/cursor-config/skills/code-review

Configuração global do Cursor: user rules, agent skills, slash commands e hooks com scripts de instalação.

Install
npx -y skills add JoaoAlavarse/cursor-config --skill code-review

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

2 things to look at

  • 15 days oldThe repository was created 15 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
  • 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

Reviews code changes for correctness, security, reliability and maintainability. Use when reviewing pull requests, diffs, or when the user asks for a code review.

SKILL.md

2.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Objective

Review the provided code, code changes or pull request and identify issues that materially affect the quality of the implementation.

Focus on correctness, reliability and long-term maintainability rather than personal preferences.

Context

Before starting the review:

  1. If project rules are available, read and follow them.
  2. Otherwise, infer the project's conventions from the existing codebase.
  3. Respect the project's architecture, coding patterns, conventions and documented design decisions.
  4. Do not assume the project follows current best practices.
  5. Only recommend changes that intentionally deviate from the project's conventions when they materially improve correctness, security, reliability, maintainability or performance.

Review Process

First understand the purpose of the change before evaluating the implementation.

Review the implementation in the following order:

  1. Correctness
  2. Security
  3. Reliability
  4. Performance
  5. Architecture
  6. Maintainability
  7. Readability and style

Do not spend time reviewing lower-priority areas until higher-priority areas have been evaluated.

Review Guidelines

Report only issues that are actionable and provide meaningful value.

Keep the review concise. Prioritize the highest-impact findings.

Avoid speculative feedback and theoretical improvements that provide little practical value.

Do not suggest changes based solely on personal preference.

Avoid overengineering.

Prefer improvements that fit naturally into the existing codebase.

Explain why each issue matters.

Describe the potential impact of each issue.

Whenever possible, recommend a concrete solution instead of only identifying a problem.

Differentiate between required changes and optional improvements.

If no significant issues are found, explicitly state that.

Highlight particularly good implementation decisions when they materially improve the solution.

Output

Summary

Provide a brief overall assessment.

Findings

For each finding include:

  • Severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low)
  • Category
  • Description
  • Impact
  • Recommendation

Order findings by severity.

Positive Observations

List implementation decisions worth preserving.

Overall Recommendation

Conclude with one of:

  • Approve
  • Approve with minor improvements
  • Requires changes
  • Requires significant rework

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. 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.