AgentStack
SKILL unreviewed MIT Self-run

Review Checklist

skill-versoxbt-claude-initial-setup-review-checklist · by VersoXBT

>

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

Install

$ agentstack add skill-versoxbt-claude-initial-setup-review-checklist

Open-source listing — not yet scanned by AgentStack. Follow the source repository for install instructions.

Security review

⚠ Flagged

1 finding(s); flagged for manual review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

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

What it can access

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

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

About

Code Review Checklist

A systematic approach to code review with categorized checks and severity levels. Focus on issues that matter most: correctness, security, and maintainability. Provide constructive, actionable feedback.

When to Use

  • Reviewing a pull request or code changes
  • Asking Claude to review code you wrote
  • Setting up code review standards for a team
  • Learning what to look for in code reviews
  • Writing review comments on PRs

Core Patterns

Severity Levels

Classify every finding by severity to prioritize fixes.

CRITICAL - Must fix before merge. Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks,
           broken functionality, production crashes.

HIGH     - Should fix before merge. Bugs, race conditions, missing error handling,
           performance issues with measurable impact.

MEDIUM   - Fix soon, can merge with follow-up ticket. Code smells, missing tests
           for edge cases, suboptimal patterns, unclear naming.

LOW      - Optional improvement. Style preferences, minor readability tweaks,
           documentation suggestions.

Correctness Checks

The most important category. Does the code do what it claims?

// CHECK: Off-by-one errors
// WRONG
for (let i = 0; i  {
  await db.posts.delete(req.params.id); // Anyone authenticated can delete any post
});
// CORRECT: Verify ownership
app.delete('/api/posts/:id', authenticate, async (req, res) => {
  const post = await db.posts.findById(req.params.id);
  if (post.authorId !== req.user.id) {
    return res.status(403).json({ error: 'Forbidden' });
  }
  await db.posts.delete(req.params.id);
});

// CHECK: Sensitive data exposure
// WRONG: Returning password hash to client
app.get('/api/users/:id', async (req, res) => {
  const user = await db.users.findById(req.params.id);
  res.json(user); // Includes passwordHash, internalNotes, etc.
});
// CORRECT: Select only needed fields
const { id, name, email, avatar } = await db.users.findById(req.params.id);
res.json({ id, name, email, avatar });

Performance Checks

Identify patterns that cause performance issues at scale.

// CHECK: N+1 queries
// WRONG
const posts = await db.posts.findMany();
for (const post of posts) {
  post.author = await db.users.findById(post.authorId); // N+1 queries
}
// CORRECT
const posts = await db.posts.findMany({
  include: { author: true }, // Single query with join
});

// CHECK: Unbounded queries
// WRONG
const allUsers = await db.users.findMany(); // Returns entire table
// CORRECT
const users = await db.users.findMany({ take: 50, skip: offset });

// CHECK: Missing indexes implied by query patterns
// If reviewing a new query with WHERE clauses, verify indexes exist

Constructive Feedback Format

Write reviews that teach, not criticize.

## Good review comment format:

**[MEDIUM] Consider using `Map` instead of object for dynamic keys**
The current approach uses a plain object as a lookup table. `Map` provides
better performance for frequent additions/deletions and avoids prototype
pollution risks.

```typescript
// Current
const cache: Record = {};
cache[key] = value;

// Suggested
const cache = new Map();
cache.set(key, value);

Bad review comment format:

"This is wrong, use a Map." (No severity, no explanation, no example, not constructive)


### Review Checklist Summary

Walk through this list for every PR:

```markdown
## Correctness
- [ ] Logic handles edge cases (empty arrays, null, zero, negative numbers)
- [ ] Error states are handled (network failures, invalid data, timeouts)
- [ ] Async operations have proper error handling
- [ ] No race conditions in concurrent code

## Security
- [ ] User input is validated at the boundary
- [ ] Authorization checks on every resource access
- [ ] No sensitive data in logs, responses, or error messages
- [ ] No hardcoded secrets or credentials

## Maintainability
- [ ] Functions are focused and under 50 lines
- [ ] Variable and function names clearly express intent
- [ ] No unnecessary complexity or premature abstraction
- [ ] Changes are consistent with existing codebase patterns

## Testing
- [ ] New code has corresponding tests
- [ ] Edge cases are tested
- [ ] Tests verify behavior, not implementation details
- [ ] No flaky test patterns (timeouts, order-dependence)

## Performance
- [ ] No N+1 query patterns
- [ ] Database queries are bounded (LIMIT/pagination)
- [ ] No unnecessary re-renders in UI code
- [ ] Large data sets are handled with streaming or pagination

Anti-Patterns

  • Nitpicking style issues that should be handled by linters/formatters
  • Rubber-stamping PRs without reading the code ("LGTM" with no comments)
  • Rewriting the author's approach in your preferred style without justification
  • Blocking on LOW severity items
  • Providing only negative feedback with no constructive suggestions
  • Reviewing only the diff without understanding the broader context
  • Leaving ambiguous comments like "this seems wrong" without explanation

Quick Reference

| Priority | Focus Area | Key Questions | |----------|-----------|---------------| | 1 | Correctness | Does it work? Edge cases handled? | | 2 | Security | Input validated? Auth checked? Secrets safe? | | 3 | Performance | N+1 queries? Unbounded results? | | 4 | Maintainability | Readable? Testable? Consistent? | | 5 | Testing | Tests exist? Cover edge cases? | | 6 | Style | Handled by linters, not reviewers |

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.