Code review

Skill VRIL-LABS/skill-jam/skills/ai-ml/knowledge-work-plugins-main/knowledge-work-plugins-main/engineering/skills/code-review

Welcome to the skill-jam ☄️🏀

Install

npx -y skills add VRIL-LABS/skill-jam --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.
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

Review code changes for security, performance, and correctness. Trigger with a PR URL or diff, "review this before I merge", "is this code safe?", or when checking a change for N+1 queries, injection risks, missing edge cases, or error handling gaps.

SKILL.md

4.2 KB, 768 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

/code-review

If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.

Review code changes with a structured lens on security, performance, correctness, and maintainability.

Usage

/code-review <PR URL or file path>

Review the provided code changes: @$1

If no specific file or URL is provided, ask what to review.

How It Works

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                      CODE REVIEW                                   │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  STANDALONE (always works)                                       │
│  ✓ Paste a diff, PR URL, or point to files                      │
│  ✓ Security audit (OWASP top 10, injection, auth)               │
│  ✓ Performance review (N+1, memory leaks, complexity)           │
│  ✓ Correctness (edge cases, error handling, race conditions)    │
│  ✓ Style (naming, structure, readability)                        │
│  ✓ Actionable suggestions with code examples                    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  SUPERCHARGED (when you connect your tools)                      │
│  + Source control: Pull PR diff automatically                    │
│  + Project tracker: Link findings to tickets                     │
│  + Knowledge base: Check against team coding standards           │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Review Dimensions

Security

SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
Authentication and authorization flaws
Secrets or credentials in code
Insecure deserialization
Path traversal
SSRF

Performance

N+1 queries
Unnecessary memory allocations
Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths)
Missing database indexes
Unbounded queries or loops
Resource leaks

Correctness

Edge cases (empty input, null, overflow)
Race conditions and concurrency issues
Error handling and propagation
Off-by-one errors
Type safety

Maintainability

Naming clarity
Single responsibility
Duplication
Test coverage
Documentation for non-obvious logic

Output

## Code Review: [PR title or file]

### Summary
[1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall quality]

### Critical Issues
| # | File | Line | Issue | Severity |
|---|------|------|-------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | 🔴 Critical |

### Suggestions
| # | File | Line | Suggestion | Category |
|---|------|------|------------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | Performance |

### What Looks Good
- [Positive observations]

### Verdict
[Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]

If Connectors Available

If ~~source control is connected:

Pull the PR diff automatically from the URL
Check CI status and test results

If ~~project tracker is connected:

Link findings to related tickets
Verify the PR addresses the stated requirements

If ~~knowledge base is connected:

Check changes against team coding standards and style guides

Tips

Provide context — "This is a hot path" or "This handles PII" helps me focus.
Specify concerns — "Focus on security" narrows the review.
Include tests — I'll check test coverage and quality too.

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most code review skills give in 768 tokens

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. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.