AgentStack
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Code Review

skill-arozumenko-sdlc-skills-code-review · by arozumenko

Review code for correctness, security, performance, and maintainability. Use when the user asks to "review this code", "check my changes", "review PR", "audit" — and proactively after a non-trivial change or before opening, approving, or merging a PR, even unprompted.

No reviews yet
0 installs
17 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-arozumenko-sdlc-skills-code-review

✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

Are you the author of Code Review? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Code Review

Systematic code review focused on what matters. Not a style police — a correctness and risk checker.

Review Scope

Determine what to review:

# Review staged changes
git --no-pager diff --cached

# Review working tree changes
git --no-pager diff

# Review a PR
gh pr diff 

# Review specific files
# Just read them directly

Review Checklist

Check in this priority order. Stop at each category — don't rush to the next.

1. Correctness

  • Does it do what it claims?
  • Are edge cases handled (nulls, empty collections, boundary values)?
  • Are error paths correct (not swallowed, not over-caught)?
  • Do conditional branches cover all cases?

2. Security

  • Input validation at system boundaries (user input, API responses)?
  • SQL injection, XSS, command injection risks?
  • Secrets in code or logs?
  • Permissions and authorization checked?

3. Concurrency & State

  • Race conditions in shared state?
  • Proper locking/synchronization?
  • Async operations awaited correctly?
  • Resources properly closed/released?

4. Performance

  • O(n^2) or worse in hot paths?
  • Unnecessary allocations in loops?
  • N+1 query patterns?
  • Missing indexes for new queries?

5. Maintainability

  • Is the intent clear from reading the code?
  • Could someone unfamiliar modify this safely?
  • Are there implicit assumptions that should be explicit?

Output Format

Structure your review as:

## Summary
One sentence: what this change does and whether it looks good.

## Issues
### [Critical/Important/Nit] Title
File: path/to/file.py:42
Description of the issue and why it matters.
Suggested fix (if non-obvious).

## Questions
Things that aren't wrong but need clarification from the author.

Severity levels:

  • Critical — will break in production, security vulnerability, data loss risk
  • Important — correctness issue, significant performance problem, missing error handling
  • Nit — style, naming, minor improvement (limit to 2-3 max, don't pile on)

What NOT to Review

  • Style preferences already handled by formatters/linters
  • Adding type hints to code the author didn't change
  • Suggesting refactors unrelated to the change
  • Commenting on test structure unless tests are wrong

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet — be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.