Code review

Skill s-hiraoku/synapse-a2a/.agents/skills/code-review

Install

npx -y skills add s-hiraoku/synapse-a2a --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

no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
9 stars9 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

Perform structured code reviews focusing on correctness, readability, security, and maintainability. Use this skill when reviewing pull requests, evaluating code changes, or establishing review standards for a team.

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

2.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Code Review

Perform structured, actionable code reviews.

When to Use

Reviewing a pull request or set of changes
Evaluating code quality before merging
Auditing a module for technical debt
Establishing review standards or checklists

Review Dimensions

Review code across these dimensions, in priority order:

1. Correctness

Does the code do what it claims?
Are edge cases handled? (null, empty, overflow, concurrency)
Are error paths tested?
Do tests cover the changed behavior?

2. Security

Input validation at system boundaries
No secrets in code (API keys, passwords, tokens)
SQL/command injection prevention
Proper authentication and authorization checks
See security-audit skill for deeper analysis

3. Readability

Clear naming (variables, functions, classes)
Functions do one thing
No deep nesting (max 3 levels)
Comments explain "why", not "what"
Consistent style with the surrounding codebase

4. Maintainability

No unnecessary abstractions
DRY without over-abstraction (rule of three)
Dependencies are justified
Breaking changes are flagged

5. Performance

Only flag when there is a real concern (hot path, large data, N+1 queries)
Do not micro-optimize unless the context demands it

Review Output Format

Structure feedback as:

## Review: <PR title or file>

### Must Fix
- [ ] **file.py:42** — [Correctness] Description of the issue and suggested fix

### Should Fix
- [ ] **file.py:78** — [Readability] Description and suggestion

### Consider
- [ ] **file.py:100** — [Performance] Optional improvement

### Positive
- file.py:15 — Good use of context manager for resource cleanup

Severity levels:

Level	Meaning	Merge?
Must Fix	Bug, security issue, or broken contract	Block
Should Fix	Significant readability/maintainability concern	Request changes
Consider	Optional improvement, style preference	Approve with comment
Positive	Good patterns worth highlighting	-

Guidelines

Be specific - Point to exact lines, suggest concrete alternatives
Explain why - "This could cause X because Y", not just "change this"
Separate style from substance - Automate style (linters); review logic manually
Limit scope - Review what changed, not the entire file (unless asked)
Acknowledge good work - Include at least one positive observation
Propose, don't impose - "Consider using X" not "You must use X" (unless it's a Must Fix)