Code Review Skill
Use this when the user requests a review of code, pull requests, or diffs. Load the smallest relevant context first (changed files, linked tickets, reproduction steps) before drilling into implementation details.
Review flow
- •Establish scope
- •Summarize the change intent, affected components, and linked issues.
- •Ask for missing diffs, runtime configuration, or reproduction instructions.
- •Trace the cause
- •Important: try to fix things at the cause, not the symptom. Follow data flow upstream to ensure the change touches the real source of the problem.
- •Flag quick fixes that mask deeper defects or debt.
- •Manage context
- •Pin key files and collapse unrelated noise.
- •Record assumptions and request clarification when signals conflict.
- •Validate correctness
- •Inspect logic paths, edge cases, and concurrency or performance concerns.
- •Map existing tests to behaviors; specify new tests or instrumentation when coverage is thin.
- •Check conventions
- •Compare against architecture and style guides. Surface deviations with concrete alternatives or references.
- •Communicate outcomes
- •Grade findings by severity (blocker, follow-up, nit).
- •Offer actionable edits, test commands, or documentation updates.
Response template
code
### Findings - [severity] file:line — issue + why it matters ### Questions - Clarifications needed to proceed ### Recommended actions - Ordered list of fixes, tests, or follow-ups
Safeguards
- •If critical context is missing, pause and ask for it instead of guessing.
- •Never suggest destructive git commands unless the user has already used them in the conversation.
- •When advising on tests, prefer deterministic automated coverage; call out manual validation only when unavoidable.