AgentSkillsCN

code-review

代码审查工作流。在审查代码变更、Pull Request，或特定文件的质量、漏洞与最佳实践时使用此功能。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: code-review
description: Code review workflow. Use when reviewing code changes, PRs, or specific files for quality, bugs, and best practices.
argument-hint: <target> [--multi]

Code Review: $ARGUMENTS

Review the code related to: $ARGUMENTS

Usage

code
/code-review <target>           # Claude-only review (6 parallel agents)
/code-review --multi <target>   # Also get reviews from Gemini and Codex

Step 1: Locate and Read Project Guidelines

First, find and read any CLAUDE.md files in the repository root and relevant directories to understand project-specific conventions and rules.

Step 2: Identify Relevant Code

Search for and identify all files related to "$ARGUMENTS". Use Glob and Grep to find:

  • •Direct implementations
  • •Related tests
  • •Usages/consumers of this code

Step 3: Parallel Review Agents

Launch the following review perspectives IN PARALLEL:

Agent 1: Bug & Logic Review

  • •Look for potential bugs, edge cases, race conditions
  • •Check null/undefined handling
  • •Verify error handling completeness
  • •Look for off-by-one errors

Agent 2: Architecture & Patterns Review

  • •Check compliance with CLAUDE.md rules
  • •Search docs/ for documented patterns related to this code area
  • •Verify code follows existing codebase patterns
  • •Assess separation of concerns
  • •Identify code duplication

Agent 3: Security & Performance Review

  • •Check for injection vulnerabilities
  • •Verify input validation
  • •Look for sensitive data exposure
  • •Identify performance bottlenecks (N+1 queries, unnecessary loops)
  • •Check for memory leaks

Agent 4: Historical Context Review

  • •Use git blame to understand code evolution
  • •Check for TODO/FIXME comments that need addressing
  • •Identify code that may be stale or unused

Agent 5: Comment Quality Review

Invoke /review-comments --staged --changed to review comment quality in changed files.

  • •Identify "what" comments that should be "why" comments
  • •Flag comments that could be replaced with better naming
  • •Ensure comments add value, not noise

Agent 6: Test Quality Review

Invoke /test --review --staged to review test quality in changed test files.

  • •Check for missing edge cases and coverage gaps
  • •Identify brittle or flaky test patterns
  • •Flag over-mocking and testing implementation instead of behavior
  • •Ensure tests have meaningful assertions

Step 3.5: External Advisor Reviews (--multi only)

If --multi flag is present in $ARGUMENTS, also get external opinions:

Use the Skill tool to invoke second-opinion --quick with this prompt:

code
Read-only code review. Review the staged changes (git diff --cached) in this repository. Provide a focused code review in 300 words or less covering: potential bugs or edge cases, security concerns, performance issues, and architecture/pattern violations.

Step 4: Score and Filter Issues

For each issue found, assign a confidence score (0-100). Only report issues with confidence >= 80.

Step 5: Format Output

Critical Issues (Must Fix)

[List issues that could cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or data loss]

Improvements (Should Fix)

[List issues that violate patterns, reduce maintainability, or hurt performance]

Suggestions (Nice to Have)

[List minor style issues, potential refactors, or enhancements]

External Advisor Reviews (--multi only)

If --multi was used, include:

Gemini

{gemini_code_review}

Codex

{codex_code_review}

Cross-Model Agreement

{note areas where external advisors agree/disagree with Claude agents - highlight consensus issues as higher confidence}

Examples

Review staged PR changes with 6 agents:

/code-review

Runs 6 parallel review agents (bug/logic, architecture, security/performance, historical context, comment quality, test quality) against staged changes and produces a prioritized list of issues grouped by severity.

Cross-model consensus review:

/code-review --multi

Runs the same 6 Claude agents plus external reviews from Gemini and Codex. The output includes a cross-model agreement section highlighting issues where all models converge, giving higher confidence to consensus findings.

Review agents should apply clean code principles when evaluating code quality.

For each issue, explain:

  1. •What the problem is
  2. •Why it matters
  3. •How to fix it (with code example if helpful)

Troubleshooting

Too many changed files for agents to handle

Solution: Narrow the review scope by targeting a specific directory or file pattern (e.g., /code-review src/auth/) instead of the entire changeset, or break the PR into smaller, focused reviews.

Agent returns shallow or redundant findings

Solution: Ensure the review target is specific enough to give agents meaningful context; vague targets like "everything" produce generic results. Re-run with a focused target and verify that CLAUDE.md contains project-specific patterns the agents can check against.