AgentStack
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Code Reviewer

skill-kumaran-is-claude-code-onboarding-code-reviewer · by kumaran-is

General-purpose code review skill. Provides checklists for security, code quality, performance, and best practices. Use when reviewing code changes, PRs, or performing quality audits.

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

Install

$ agentstack add skill-kumaran-is-claude-code-onboarding-code-reviewer

✓ 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 Reviewer? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Iron Law: Never approve code without reading the actual implementation; always provide severity-bucketed findings with file:line evidence.

Code Reviewer

General-purpose code review skill covering security, quality, performance, and best practices.

When to Use

  • After writing or modifying code
  • During PR reviews
  • When auditing code quality

Process

  1. Identify changed files via git diff or user request
  2. Read [reference/code-review-checklist.md](reference/code-review-checklist.md) for review categories, severity levels, and output format
  3. Review each file against the checklist
  4. Report findings by severity (Critical > High > Medium > Low)

Reference Files

| File | Contents | Load When | |------|----------|-----------| | reference/code-review-checklist.md | Security checks, code quality, performance, best practices, output format | Reviewing any code change, pre-PR checklist, security audit |

Error Handling

If no changes are found, report "No changes detected" and list the files/paths searched. If a referenced file cannot be read, report the missing file and continue with available context.

Anti-Patterns

  • Never rubber-stamp without file:line — "looks good" with no evidence is a failed review
  • Never mark APPROVED if any Critical or High finding is unresolved — severity discipline is non-negotiable
  • Never review from memory — always read the actual changed files; filenames do not tell you what changed
  • Never scope-creep the review — report what changed, not what you wish were different in adjacent code
  • Never merge findings across files — report per-file with specific line numbers, not aggregate impressions
  • Avoid vague findings — "this could be a security issue" is not a finding; "SQL built via string concatenation at service.ts:47 allows injection" is

Verify

After completing a review:

# Confirm all files you reviewed are the ones that actually changed
git diff --name-only HEAD~1

# Confirm no new linting errors introduced
npm run lint 2>&1 | grep -E "error|warning" | head -20

# Confirm tests still pass after changes
npm test -- --passWithNoTests 2>&1 | tail -5

Report format after verification:

REVIEW COMPLETE:
- Files reviewed: N (list them)
- Findings: X Critical, Y High, Z Medium, W Low
- Verdict: APPROVED / NEEDS_REVIEW / REJECT
- Evidence: [file:line for each finding]

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.