Install
$ agentstack add skill-tranhieutt-software-development-department-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.
About
When this skill is invoked:
- Read the target file(s) in full.
- Read the CLAUDE.md for project coding standards.
- Identify the system category (api, service, repository, component, utility, infrastructure)
and apply category-specific standards.
- Evaluate against coding standards:
- [ ] Public methods and classes have doc comments
- [ ] Cyclomatic complexity under 10 per method
- [ ] No method exceeds 40 lines (excluding data declarations)
- [ ] Dependencies are injected (no singletons for business state)
- [ ] Configuration values loaded from external config, not hardcoded
- [ ] Systems expose interfaces (not concrete class dependencies)
- Check architectural compliance:
- [ ] Correct dependency direction (infrastructure ← domain ← application)
- [ ] No circular dependencies between modules
- [ ] Proper layer separation (UI does not own business logic)
- [ ] Events/messages used for cross-service communication
- [ ] Consistent with established patterns in the codebase
- [ ] Interfaces are earning their complexity: prefer deep modules over thin pass-through wrappers
- [ ] Suspected abstractions survive the deletion test: deleting them would reintroduce complexity across callers, not simplify the system
- Check SOLID compliance:
- [ ] Single Responsibility: Each class has one reason to change
- [ ] Open/Closed: Extendable without modification
- [ ] Liskov Substitution: Subtypes substitutable for base types
- [ ] Interface Segregation: No fat interfaces
- [ ] Dependency Inversion: Depends on abstractions, not concretions
- Check for common web/software issues:
- [ ] No N+1 query patterns (use eager loading or joins)
- [ ] Proper async/await usage (no unhandled promises, no floating async)
- [ ] Input validation at system boundaries (user input, external APIs)
- [ ] Proper error handling with meaningful, safe messages (no stack traces exposed)
- [ ] No secrets or sensitive data hardcoded (API keys, passwords, tokens)
- [ ] Resource cleanup (DB connections, streams, subscriptions, event listeners)
- [ ] Thread/concurrency safety where required
- Output the review in this format:
## Code Review: [File/System Name]
### Standards Compliance: [X/6 passing]
[List failures with line references]
### Architecture: [CLEAN / MINOR ISSUES / VIOLATIONS FOUND]
[List specific architectural concerns]
### SOLID: [COMPLIANT / ISSUES FOUND]
[List specific violations]
### Web/Software Concerns
[List web and software-specific issues found]
### Positive Observations
[What is done well — always include this section]
### Required Changes
[Must-fix items before approval]
### Suggestions
[Nice-to-have improvements]
### Verdict: [APPROVED / APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS / CHANGES REQUIRED]
Protocol
Architecture vocabulary to use when it helps clarify a finding:
- Module — unit with an interface and implementation
- Deep module — small interface, high leverage behind it
- Shallow module — interface nearly as complex as implementation
- Deletion test — if deleting a wrapper mostly removes indirection instead of
reintroducing complexity in callers, the abstraction may be shallow
Use this vocabulary to sharpen architectural findings, not to force jargon into every review.
- Question: Auto-starts from argument (file or directory path); no clarification needed
- Options: Skip — single review path
- Decision: Skip — verdict is advisory
- Draft: Full review shown in conversation only
- Approval: Skip — read-only; no files written
Output
Deliver exactly:
- Risk Tier (Low / Medium / High) with one-sentence justification
- Standards & Architecture compliance score (X/6, X/5)
- Blocking issues — must fix before merge (or "None")
- Suggestions — optional improvements, max 3
- Verdict:
APPROVED/APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS/CHANGES REQUIRED
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: tranhieutt
- Source: tranhieutt/softwaredevelopment_department
- 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.