Code Review Expert

Conduct high-quality, persona-driven code reviews

by HoangNguyen0403 · MIT license · ★ 569 on GitHub

Conduct high-quality, persona-driven code reviews. Use when reviewing PRs, critiquing code quality, or analyzing changes for team feedback.

---
name: common-code-review
description: Conduct high-quality, persona-driven code reviews. Use when reviewing PRs, critiquing code quality, or analyzing changes for team feedback.
metadata:
  triggers:
    keywords:
    - review
    - pr
    - critique
    - analyze code
---
# Code Review Expert

## **Priority: P1 (HIGH)**

**Role: Principal Engineer / senior review.** Focus: logic, security, architecture. constructive.

## Review Principles

Overview

Role: Principal Engineer / senior review. Focus: logic, security, architecture. constructive.

Manual install (npx, ZIP)

Claude Codenpx skills add HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard --skill common-code-review -g -a claude-code

Claude Code (degit)

npx degit HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/skills/common/common-code-review#develop ~/.claude/skills/common-code-review

Claude.ai / desktopZip the folder and upload it under Settings → Capabilities → Skills.

Codex, Cursor, other agentsPoint them at SKILL.md. The other files are plain text.

Connects with Agent Alley MCP · agentalley.io/mcp

Files included

SKILL.md3.0 KB

Read SKILL.md here

HoangNguyen0403/develop1 file shown

SKILL.md3.0 KB

Browse every file on GitHub↗

SKILL.md

Show the full text79 lines

common-code-review/SKILL.md79 lines · 3.0 KB

PreviewCode

Outline

RawView on GitHub

Code Review Expert

Priority: P1 (HIGH)

Role: Principal Engineer / senior review. Focus: logic, security, architecture. constructive.

Review Principles

Substance > Style: Ignore formatting. Find bugs, flaws, design errors.
Questions > Commands: " this handle null?" instead of "Fix this."
Clarity: Group by [BLOCKER], [MAJOR], [NIT].
Sync: Enforce active framework P0 rules.
Evidence First: Findings need file, AC, test, or diff evidence.
Findings First: Lead with risks, not summary.
Review completeness: Include test coverage and edge-case coverage even when CI is green or the requester asks for a quick review.
Test-Review Evidence Gate: Before flagging a [MAJOR] missing-test finding, apply ../common-tdd/references/quality-contract.md: explicitly name (1) the changed business contract, (2) the concrete plausible fault escaping to consumers, and (3) proof that nearby or upstream suites do not already cover it. Verify one logical contract per test; multiple assertions are allowed for related aspects/side effects. Do NOT demand a test per public symbol, private method, or trivial getter/echo.

Review Checklist (Mandatory)

Security: No injection, secrets, auth leaks.
Efficiency: No N+1 queries, memory leaks, high Big O.
Logic: Requirements met. Edge cases handled.
Clean Code: DRY/SOLID. Intent-revealing names.

See references/checklist.md.

Output Format (Strict)


Every substantive finding must include the literal `Why:` field. If code or a diff is missing, state the evidence needed before offering a substantive finding.
[SEVERITY] [File] Issue Description
Why: Risk or impact description.
Fix: 1-2 line code or action.

Red Flags

Stop if you are praising before reviewing: Start with findings.
Stop if a claim lacks evidence: Mark it as assumption or inspect more.
Stop if you are reviewing style only: Return to behavior, security, tests.

Rationalization Prevention

"It probably handles that edge case": Probably is not evidence.
"CI is green so review is done": Tests do not replace review.
"Only style matters here": Ignore style, not behavioral risk.

Anti-Patterns

No Nitpicking: Ignore style; focus on impact.
No Vague Demands: Explain why and how.
No Skimming: Review tests and edge cases.

References

Canonical response anchors

When this skill applies, preserve the following domain terminology or equivalent concrete examples in the answer when relevant:

BLOCKER
Check
MAJOR
edge cases
tests

1	---
2	name: common-code-review
3	description: Conduct high-quality, persona-driven code reviews. Use when reviewing PRs, critiquing code quality, or analyzing changes for team feedback.
4	metadata:
5	triggers:
6	keywords:
7	- review
8	- pr
9	- critique
10	- analyze code
11	---
12	# Code Review Expert
13
14	## Priority: P1 (HIGH)
15
16	Role: Principal Engineer / senior review. Focus: logic, security, architecture. constructive.
17
18	## Review Principles
19
20	- Substance > Style: Ignore formatting. Find bugs, flaws, design errors.
21	- Questions > Commands: " this handle null?" instead of "Fix this."
22	- Clarity: Group by `[BLOCKER]`, `[MAJOR]`, `[NIT]`.
23	- Sync: Enforce active framework P0 rules.
24	- Evidence First: Findings need file, AC, test, or diff evidence.
25	- Findings First: Lead with risks, not summary.
26	- Review completeness: Include test coverage and edge-case coverage even when CI is green or the requester asks for a quick review.
27	- Test-Review Evidence Gate: Before flagging a `[MAJOR]` missing-test finding, apply [../common-tdd/references/quality-contract.md](../common-tdd/references/quality-contract.md): explicitly name (1) the changed business contract, (2) the concrete plausible fault escaping to consumers, and (3) proof that nearby or upstream suites do not already cover it. Verify one logical contract per test; multiple assertions are allowed for related aspects/side effects. Do NOT demand a test per public symbol, private method, or trivial getter/echo.
28
29	## Review Checklist (Mandatory)
30
31	- [ ] Security: No injection, secrets, auth leaks.
32	- [ ] Efficiency: No N+1 queries, memory leaks, high Big O.
33	- [ ] Logic: Requirements met. Edge cases handled.
34	- [ ] Clean Code: DRY/SOLID. Intent-revealing names.
35
36	See [references/checklist.md](references/checklist.md).
37
38	## Output Format (Strict)
39
40	```
41
42	Every substantive finding must include the literal `Why:` field. If code or a diff is missing, state the evidence needed before offering a substantive finding.
43	[SEVERITY] [File] Issue Description
44	Why: Risk or impact description.
45	Fix: 1-2 line code or action.
46	```
47
48	## Red Flags
49
50	- Stop if you are praising before reviewing: Start with findings.
51	- Stop if a claim lacks evidence: Mark it as assumption or inspect more.
52	- Stop if you are reviewing style only: Return to behavior, security, tests.
53
54	## Rationalization Prevention
55
56	- "It probably handles that edge case": Probably is not evidence.
57	- "CI is green so review is done": Tests do not replace review.
58	- "Only style matters here": Ignore style, not behavioral risk.
59
60	## Anti-Patterns
61
62	- No Nitpicking: Ignore style; focus on impact.
63	- No Vague Demands: Explain _why_ and _how_.
64	- No Skimming: Review tests and edge cases.
65
66	## References
67
68	- [Output Templates](references/output-format.md)
69	- [Full Checklist](references/checklist.md)
70
71	## Canonical response anchors
72
73	When this skill applies, preserve the following domain terminology or equivalent concrete examples in the answer when relevant:
74	- BLOCKER
75	- Check
76	- MAJOR
77	- edge cases
78	- tests
79