Code review
Skill wchen02/cursor-agent-learning/.cursor/skills/code-review
A hands-on project to learn Cursor’s agent customization: rules, skills, subagents, commands, hooks, and AGENTS.md. Everything is set up with examples and docs so you can try things and tweak them.
npx -y skills add wchen02/cursor-agent-learning --skill code-reviewAssembled 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
Review code for correctness, style, and maintainability. Use when the user asks for a code review, PR review, or feedback on changes.
SKILL.md
1.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Code Review
When the user asks for a code review, follow this process.
Checklist
- Correctness — Logic is sound and edge cases are handled.
- Security — No obvious issues (e.g. injection, hardcoded secrets, missing validation).
- Style — Matches project conventions and is readable.
- Structure — Functions/classes are focused; duplication is minimized.
- Tests — Changes that affect behavior have or deserve tests.
Output format
Group feedback by severity:
- Critical — Must fix before merge (bugs, security).
- Suggestion — Should consider (readability, performance, patterns).
- Nice to have — Optional improvements.
Keep feedback actionable: point to files/lines and suggest concrete changes where helpful.
Scope
- If the user points to specific files or a diff, focus there.
- If they say "review my changes", use git (e.g.
git diff) to determine scope when appropriate.
Gives 1 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 vulnerabilitieshere, and in 31 of 610, across 27 files
- factualize corrections without over-explainingin 30 of 610, across 2 files
Said here and by no other author read
- check style matches conventions
- check function and class focus
- point to specific files and lines
- focus on indicated files or diffs
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once.