AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Code Review

skill-nateslabach-skills-code-review · by nateslabach

Conducts a structured 3-phase code review — understanding intent, cataloguing issues by severity, and stress-testing with adversarial questions. Use when reviewing a code diff, pull request, or snippet for correctness, edge cases, security issues, and merge readiness.

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

Install

$ agentstack add skill-nateslabach-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.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-nateslabach-skills-code-review)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
4mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

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 →
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

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, or Block — 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.

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.