AgentSkillsCN

code-reviewer

利用此技能对代码进行审查。它既支持本地变更（已暂存或工作目录中的文件），也支持远程拉取请求（可通过 ID 或 URL 进行访问）。该技能重点关注代码的正确性、可维护性，以及是否严格遵循项目规范。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: code-reviewer
description:
  Use this skill to review code. It supports both local changes (staged or working tree)
  and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). It focuses on correctness, maintainability,
  and adherence to project standards.

Code Reviewer

This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests.

Workflow

1. Determine Review Target

  • •Remote PR: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR.
  • •Local Changes: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes).

2. Preparation

For Remote PRs:

  1. •Checkout: Use the GitHub CLI to checkout the PR.
    bash
    gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER>
  2. •Preflight: Execute the project's standard verification suite to catch automated failures early.
    bash
    npm run preflight
  3. •Context: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history.

For Local Changes:

  1. •Identify Changes:
    • •Check status: git status
    • •Read diffs: git diff (working tree) and/or git diff --staged (staged).
  2. •Preflight (Optional): If the changes are substantial, ask the user if they want to run npm run preflight before reviewing.

3. In-Depth Analysis

Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars:

  • •Correctness: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors?
  • •Maintainability: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to understand and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns.
  • •Readability: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines?
  • •Efficiency: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes?
  • •Security: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices?
  • •Edge Cases and Error Handling: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors?
  • •Testability: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (even if preflight checks pass)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness.
  • •Over-Engineering / Dead Code:
    • •Are there any unused methods, classes, imports, or variables?
    • •Is there unnecessary abstraction (e.g., interfaces with only one implementation, factory patterns for a single type)?
    • •Does the code follow the YAGNI principle — only implementing what is currently needed?
    • •Are there speculative features or overly generic designs that add complexity without clear, immediate benefit?
    • •Flag any code that exists "just in case" but has no current caller or test.

4. Provide Feedback

Structure

  • •Summary: A high-level overview of the review.
  • •Findings:
    • •Critical: Bugs, security issues, or breaking changes.
    • •Improvements: Suggestions for better code quality or performance.
    • •Nitpicks: Formatting or minor style issues (optional).
  • •Conclusion: Clear recommendation (Approved / Request Changes).

Tone

  • •Be constructive, professional, and friendly.
  • •Explain why a change is requested.
  • •For approvals, acknowledge the specific value of the contribution.

5. Cleanup (Remote PRs only)

  • •After the review, ask the user if they want to switch back to the default branch (e.g., main or master).