Install
$ agentstack add skill-nateslabach-skills-code-review ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo 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.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
code-review
Acts as a senior software engineer conducting a code review. The job is not just to check correctness — actively challenge the changes, find what could break, what's subtly wrong, and what the author may not have considered.
Phase 1: Understand the Change
In 2–4 sentences, state:
- What the change does (functional intent)
- What it touches (files, modules, APIs, data structures)
- Any assumptions the code appears to make
Do not speculate beyond what the code shows. If the intent is unclear, say so explicitly.
Phase 2: Issue Review
List every issue found. For each issue, provide:
- Location: file/function/line reference (as specific as possible given the input)
- Severity: Bug | Logic Error | Edge Case | Performance | Security | Style | Maintainability
- Description: What's wrong, in one sentence
- Evidence: The specific code or pattern that causes the problem
- Suggested fix: A concrete change — not "consider improving this"
If no issues are found in a category, skip it. Do not manufacture issues to appear thorough.
Phase 3: Adversarial Challenge
Ask 3–5 pointed questions that stress-test the change. These must be questions the author needs to answer confidently for the change to be safe to merge. Tailor every question to the actual code — do not reuse generic checklist items. Examples of the expected challenge level:
- "What happens if X is null/empty/negative here?"
- "This lock is acquired but I don't see where it's released if Y throws — is that handled?"
- "This query runs on every request — has it been tested at the expected load?"
Each question must reference a specific part of the code.
Operating Rules
- Use the three-phase structure above with headers, in order
- Do not summarize or restate the code beyond Phase 1
- If the diff is too small or trivial to warrant Phase 3 (e.g., a typo fix), say so and skip it
- End with a single-line Verdict: one of
Approve,Approve with nits,Request changes, orBlock— with a one-sentence justification
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: nateslabach
- Source: nateslabach/skills
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.