Review changes
Skill prathakmalik/agent-standards-kit/skills/review-changes
Version your team's AI coding standards (skills + rules) as code, auto-sync them into Cursor, Claude Code and Copilot, and keep them fresh with a nudge -> skill -> PR loop. A GitOps-style starter template you can clone in under 5 minutes.
npx -y skills add prathakmalik/agent-standards-kit --skill review-changesAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- 12 days oldThe repository was created 12 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 a set of code changes (a diff, a branch, or staged/uncommitted work) for correctness, edge cases, security, performance, and consistency with the repo's conventions. Use when the user asks to review changes, review a PR, check a diff, or sanity-check work before committing. Trigger phrases: "review my changes", "review this PR", "check this diff before I commit".
SKILL.md
1.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
review-changes
A rigorous, constructive review of proposed changes. Prioritize code health over politeness, but be specific and actionable.
When to use
- Before committing or opening a PR.
- When asked to review a diff, branch, or file set.
What to inspect
- Logic & edge cases: off-by-one, null/undefined, empty collections, error paths, race conditions.
- Security: unsanitized input, injection, secrets in code, missing authz checks.
- Performance: accidental O(n^2), N+1 queries, unnecessary work in hot paths.
- Consistency: does it follow existing patterns in this repo? (Check neighboring files.)
- DRY/clarity: duplication that should be extracted; names that mislead.
How to respond
Structure the review as:
- Summary — 1-2 sentences on the impact of the change.
- Blocking issues — bugs or security flaws that must be fixed.
- Suggestions — refactors, perf, style (non-blocking).
- Positives — call out genuinely good solutions.
Rules
- Verify call sites when a signature changes — a local edit can break a distant caller.
- Cite exact files/lines. Prefer a concrete fix over a vague concern.
- If the diff is large, review by theme, not file-by-file noise.
- Don't invent problems to seem thorough. "Looks good, here's why" is a valid result.