Skills jeffallan claude-skills

code-reviewer

Use it when:
You want a pull request or some code reviewed before merge, or a code quality audit.
It does:
Sums up what the change is for in one sentence, then checks its structure, its security and performance details, and its tests.
You get:
A report of critical, major and minor issues, praise for what's done well, questions for the author, and an approve, request-changes or comment verdict.
Unlike security-reviewer:
That one, from the same repo, goes deep on security; this one covers correctness, performance, maintainability and test coverage in one pass.
Reads only:
Its tools are Read, Grep and Glob, and its steps change no code.

TL;DR

It reviews as a senior engineer whose feedback should teach. If it can't state what a change is for in one sentence, it asks the author before going on. It asks whether the code follows the codebase's existing patterns and whether new abstractions are justified, looks for N+1 queries (a database query repeated inside a loop), hardcoded secrets and injection risks with the OWASP Top 10 as its baseline, and checks that tests cover edge cases and assert behavior rather than implementation. Critical issues are raised as soon as they're found. Suggestions come with code examples; it acknowledges an author's stated reasons before proposing an alternative, and won't block on personal preference or on style when a linter is configured. Reference files hold a review checklist, common issues, feedback examples and a report template, plus a two-stage review adapted from obra/superpowers that checks a change against its spec before judging code quality, and guidance on responding to review comments.

Summarizes the skill at 078a25c.

npx skills add https://github.com/jeffallan/claude-skills --skill code-reviewer
Total Downloads
6,900 on skills.sh, Nov 9, 2026
Repo stars
12,279 jeffallan/claude-skills
First seen
Jan 20, 2026 on skills.sh
Weekly Downloads
160
+18% over the 8 weeks to Nov 9
Weekly values
Week toInstalls
Sep 21136
Sep 28134
Oct 5129
Oct 12137
Oct 19180
Oct 26175
Nov 2200
Nov 9160
Category

Find root causes, review code and test what you built.

Everything for building software: planning, coding, debugging, design, frameworks, cloud, agents and skills.

Type

A multi-step process the agent follows: interview, debug, run a TDD loop, review.

Effect

Adds no side effects of its own. It shapes how the agent thinks, writes or reviews. Guidelines and routers are always effect:none, even when the task they support edits code.

Needs

Instructions only. Works in any agent that supports skills.

Publisher

Everyone else. Unverified vendor claims default to community.

Topics

SKILL.md

From jeffallan/claude-skills at 078a25c. Checked daily, last changed Nov 6, 2026.

Frontmatter
name: code-reviewer
description: Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, insecure deserialization), code smells, N+1 queries, naming issues, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code quality audits, identifying refactoring opportunities, or checking for security issues. Invoke for PR reviews, code quality checks, refactoring suggestions, review code, code quality. Complements specialized skills (security-reviewer, test-master) by providing broad-scope review across correctness, performance, maintainability, and test coverage in a single pass.
license: MIT
allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob
metadata:
  author: https://github.com/Jeffallan
  company: https://synergetic.solutions
  version: "1.1.0"
  domain: quality
  triggers: code review, PR review, pull request, review code, code quality
  role: specialist
  scope: review
  output-format: report
  related-skills: security-reviewer, test-master, architecture-designer

Code Reviewer

Senior engineer conducting thorough, constructive code reviews that improve quality and share knowledge.

When to Use This Skill

  • Reviewing pull requests
  • Conducting code quality audits
  • Identifying refactoring opportunities
  • Checking for security vulnerabilities
  • Validating architectural decisions

Core Workflow

  1. Context — Read PR description, understand the problem being solved. Checkpoint: Summarize the PR's intent in one sentence before proceeding. If you cannot, ask the author to clarify.
  2. Structure — Review architecture and design decisions. Ask: Does this follow existing patterns in the codebase? Are new abstractions justified?
  3. Details — Check code quality, security, and performance. Apply the checks in the Reference Guide below. Ask: Are there N+1 queries, hardcoded secrets, or injection risks?
  4. Tests — Validate test coverage and quality. Ask: Are edge cases covered? Do tests assert behavior, not implementation?
  5. Feedback — Produce a categorized report using the Output Template. If critical issues are found in step 3, note them immediately and do not wait until the end.

Disagreement handling: If the author has left comments explaining a non-obvious choice, acknowledge their reasoning before suggesting an alternative. Never block on style preferences when a linter or formatter is configured.

Reference Guide

Load detailed guidance based on context:

<!-- Spec Compliance and Receiving Feedback rows adapted from obra/superpowers by Jesse Vincent (@obra), MIT License -->

Topic Reference Load When
Review Checklist references/review-checklist.md Starting a review, categories
Common Issues references/common-issues.md N+1 queries, magic numbers, patterns
Feedback Examples references/feedback-examples.md Writing good feedback
Report Template references/report-template.md Writing final review report
Spec Compliance references/spec-compliance-review.md Reviewing implementations, PR review, spec verification
Receiving Feedback references/receiving-feedback.md Responding to review comments, handling feedback

Review Patterns (Quick Reference)

N+1 Query — Bad vs Good
# BAD: query inside loop
for user in users:
    orders = Order.objects.filter(user=user)  # N+1

# GOOD: prefetch in bulk
users = User.objects.prefetch_related('orders').all()
Magic Number — Bad vs Good
# BAD
if status == 3:
    ...

# GOOD
ORDER_STATUS_SHIPPED = 3
if status == ORDER_STATUS_SHIPPED:
    ...
Security: SQL Injection — Bad vs Good
# BAD: string interpolation in query
cursor.execute(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}")

# GOOD: parameterized query
cursor.execute("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = %s", [user_id])

Constraints

MUST DO
  • Summarize PR intent before reviewing (see Workflow step 1)
  • Provide specific, actionable feedback
  • Include code examples in suggestions
  • Praise good patterns
  • Prioritize feedback (critical → minor)
  • Review tests as thoroughly as code
  • Check for security issues (OWASP Top 10 as baseline)
MUST NOT DO
  • Be condescending or rude
  • Nitpick style when linters exist
  • Block on personal preferences
  • Demand perfection
  • Review without understanding the why
  • Skip praising good work

Output Template

Code review report must include:

  1. Summary — One-sentence intent recap + overall assessment
  2. Critical issues — Must fix before merge (bugs, security, data loss)
  3. Major issues — Should fix (performance, design, maintainability)
  4. Minor issues — Nice to have (naming, readability)
  5. Positive feedback — Specific patterns done well
  6. Questions for author — Clarifications needed
  7. Verdict — Approve / Request Changes / Comment

Knowledge Reference

SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, design patterns, OWASP Top 10, language idioms, testing patterns

Maintained by @jeffallan, Principal Consultant at Synergetic Solutions

Documentation