Code review checklist
Skill ulpi-io/plugin-marketplace/plugins/davila7/skills/code-review-checklist
A curated collection of 7,800+ agent skills for Claude Desktop, sourced from skills.sh
npx -y skills add ulpi-io/plugin-marketplace --skill code-review-checklistAssembled 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.
- 1 stars1 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
Code review guidelines covering code quality, security, and best practices.
SKILL.md
2.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Code Review Checklist
Quick Review Checklist
Correctness
- Code does what it's supposed to do
- Edge cases handled
- Error handling in place
- No obvious bugs
Security
- Input validated and sanitized
- No SQL/NoSQL injection vulnerabilities
- No XSS or CSRF vulnerabilities
- No hardcoded secrets or sensitive credentials
- AI-Specific: Protection against Prompt Injection (if applicable)
- AI-Specific: Outputs are sanitized before being used in critical sinks
Performance
- No N+1 queries
- No unnecessary loops
- Appropriate caching
- Bundle size impact considered
Code Quality
- Clear naming
- DRY - no duplicate code
- SOLID principles followed
- Appropriate abstraction level
Testing
- Unit tests for new code
- Edge cases tested
- Tests readable and maintainable
Documentation
- Complex logic commented
- Public APIs documented
- README updated if needed
AI & LLM Review Patterns (2025)
Logic & Hallucinations
- Chain of Thought: Does the logic follow a verifiable path?
- Edge Cases: Did the AI account for empty states, timeouts, and partial failures?
- External State: Is the code making safe assumptions about file systems or networks?
Prompt Engineering Review
// ❌ Vague prompt in code
const response = await ai.generate(userInput);
// ✅ Structured & Safe prompt
const response = await ai.generate({
system: "You are a specialized parser...",
input: sanitize(userInput),
schema: ResponseSchema
});
Anti-Patterns to Flag
// ❌ Magic numbers
if (status === 3) { ... }
// ✅ Named constants
if (status === Status.ACTIVE) { ... }
// ❌ Deep nesting
if (a) { if (b) { if (c) { ... } } }
// ✅ Early returns
if (!a) return;
if (!b) return;
if (!c) return;
// do work
// ❌ Long functions (100+ lines)
// ✅ Small, focused functions
// ❌ any type
const data: any = ...
// ✅ Proper types
const data: UserData = ...
Review Comments Guide
// Blocking issues use 🔴
🔴 BLOCKING: SQL injection vulnerability here
// Important suggestions use 🟡
🟡 SUGGESTION: Consider using useMemo for performance
// Minor nits use 🟢
🟢 NIT: Prefer const over let for immutable variable
// Questions use ❓
❓ QUESTION: What happens if user is null here?
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most code review skills give
Counted across 610 of the 674 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06
- push back with technical reasoning if wrongin 60 of 610, across 24 files
- ask for clarification on unclear itemsin 51 of 610, across 16 files
- fix critical issues immediatelyin 45 of 610, across 29 files
- implement one item at a timein 45 of 610, across 11 files
- group findings by severityin 44 of 610, across 43 files
- verify feedback against the codebasein 42 of 610, across 8 files
- dispatch a code reviewer subagentin 39 of 610, across 23 files
- fix important issues before proceedingin 37 of 610, across 22 files
- test each fix individuallyin 35 of 610, across 7 files
- reply in github comment threadsin 33 of 610, across 5 files
- check for security vulnerabilitiesin 31 of 610, across 27 files
- factualize corrections without over-explainingin 30 of 610, across 2 files
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once.