AgentSkillsCN

code-review

开展语言无关的代码审查，重点关注正确性、回归问题、安全性与测试环节。当用户请求代码审查时，可使用此技能。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: code-review
description: Perform language-agnostic code reviews focusing on correctness, regressions, security, and tests. Use when the user asks for a review.
metadata:
  short-description: Code review workflow

Code Review Workflow

Focus on defects, regressions, and risks first. Be specific and evidence-based.

Review Priorities

Review in this order of importance:

  1. •Correctness: Does it do what it's supposed to?
  2. •Security: Are there vulnerabilities?
  3. •Regressions: Could this break existing behavior?
  4. •Tests: Is the change adequately tested?
  5. •Maintainability: Will this be easy to understand and modify?
  6. •Performance: Only if there are clear concerns.

Review Process

Step 1: Understand the Context

  • •Read the PR description and linked issues
  • •Understand the intent before reading code
  • •Ask clarifying questions if the purpose is unclear

Step 2: Review for Correctness

  • •Trace the logic for the main use cases
  • •Identify edge cases: null, empty, max values, concurrent access
  • •Check error handling paths
  • •Verify data validation and sanitization

Step 3: Review for Security

Check against shared/guidelines/security.md:

  • •Input validation present?
  • •Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, path)?
  • •Authentication/authorization correct?
  • •Sensitive data handled properly?

Step 4: Review for Regressions

  • •Are existing tests still passing?
  • •Could this change affect unrelated functionality?
  • •Are there implicit dependencies being broken?

Step 5: Review Tests

Check against shared/guidelines/testing.md:

  • •Is the new behavior tested?
  • •Are edge cases covered?
  • •Are the tests meaningful (not just coverage padding)?
  • •Can you think of test cases that are missing?

Step 6: Review Maintainability

Check against shared/guidelines/coding-style.md:

  • •Is the code readable and self-documenting?
  • •Are there complex sections that need comments?
  • •Is there duplication that should be extracted?
  • •Does it follow project conventions?

Output Format

Structure your review as:

Critical Issues (Must Fix)

  • •Security vulnerabilities
  • •Logic errors
  • •Data loss risks

Suggestions (Should Consider)

  • •Better approaches
  • •Missing edge cases
  • •Test improvements

Questions

  • •Clarifications needed
  • •Design decisions to discuss

Positive Notes (Optional)

  • •Well-designed solutions
  • •Good test coverage
  • •Clean implementations

Review Etiquette

  • •Be specific: Point to exact lines, explain why
  • •Suggest solutions: Don't just point out problems
  • •Ask, don't demand: "What do you think about..." vs "You must..."
  • •Separate opinions from requirements: Style preferences vs bugs
  • •Acknowledge good work: Positive feedback helps

Reminders

  • •Use shared/guidelines/security.md for security checklist
  • •Use shared/guidelines/testing.md for test coverage expectations
  • •Flag if tests weren't run and suggest how to run them