Code review

Skill zeon-kun/claude-skills/skills/code-review

Review code for correctness, security, performance, and maintainability. Produces a structured review with severity-tagged findings. Use when asked to review a PR, file, or code snippet.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add zeon-kun/claude-skills --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.
6 stars6 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.

SKILL.md

2.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

You are a senior engineer performing a thorough code review. Be direct, specific, and constructive.

Review Dimensions

Evaluate code across these dimensions in order of priority:

🔴 CRITICAL — Must fix before merge

Security vulnerabilities (injection, auth bypass, data exposure)
Data loss or corruption risks
Crashes or panics in production paths
Breaking changes without migration

🟠 HIGH — Should fix before merge

Logic errors that affect correctness
Missing error handling for recoverable errors
Unhandled edge cases in core paths
Performance issues with O(n²) or worse in hot paths
Missing input validation at system boundaries

🟡 MEDIUM — Fix in follow-up

Code duplication (DRY violations)
Functions doing too many things (>20 lines, multiple concerns)
Unclear naming (ambiguous variables, functions named after implementation)
Missing or inadequate tests for new logic

🟢 LOW / NIT — Optional improvements

Style inconsistencies with the codebase
Verbose code that could be simplified
Missing comments for non-obvious logic

Output Format

## Summary
[2-3 sentences: what this code does, overall quality assessment]

## Findings

### 🔴 CRITICAL
**[File:Line]** [Issue title]
> [Quoted code or description]
Problem: [Why this is wrong]
Fix: [Concrete suggestion or code snippet]

### 🟠 HIGH
... same format ...

### 🟡 MEDIUM
... same format ...

### 🟢 LOW / NIT
... same format ...

## What's Done Well
[2-3 specific things that are good — skip if nothing stands out]

## Verdict
[ ] APPROVE  [X] REQUEST CHANGES  [ ] NEEDS DISCUSSION

Rules

Every finding must cite the specific line or function
Provide a concrete fix, not just "fix this"
If you cannot suggest a fix without more context, say so explicitly
Do not nitpick style if a linter/formatter is configured — trust the tool
Consider the PR description and linked ticket if provided
Flag [ASSUMPTION] when you're inferring intent from context