SECURITY REVIEW
Not yet assessed
Review the original instructions and requested permissions before installing.
No security review is available for this catalog entry yet.
Community / AGENT SKILL
code-review
0
Review code changes for security, performance, and correctness. Trigger with a PR URL or diff, "review this before I merge", "is this code safe?", or when checking a change for N+1 queries, injection risks, missing edge cases, or error handling gaps.
Understand the trade-offs.
SKILL QUALITY
Not yet assessed
How clearly the skill guides your agent, how complete its workflow is, and how you can check the outcome.
No quality assessment is available for this catalog entry yet.
The full skill.
Original instructions from the publisher’s SKILL.md
<!-- Generated from skills/engineering-code-review.md by tools/generate_integrations.py. Edit the source file, not this one. --> # /code-review Review code changes with a structured lens on security, performance, correctness, and maintainability. ## Usage ``` /code-review <PR URL or file path> ``` Review the provided code changes: @$1 If no specific file or URL is provided, ask what to review. ## How It Works ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ CODE REVIEW │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ STANDALONE (always works) │ │ ✓ Paste a diff, PR URL, or point to files │ │ ✓ Security audit (OWASP top 10, injection, auth) │ │ ✓ Performance review (N+1, memory leaks, complexity) │ │ ✓ Correctness (edge cases, error handling, race conditions) │ │ ✓ Style (naming, structure, readability) │ │ ✓ Actionable suggestions with code examples │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ SUPERCHARGED (when you connect your tools) │ │ + Source control: Pull PR diff automatically │ │ + Project tracker: Link findings to tickets │ │ + Knowledge base: Check against team coding standards │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` ## Review Dimensions ### Security - SQL injection, XSS, CSRF - Authentication and authorization flaws - Secrets or credentials in code - Insecure deserialization - Path traversal - SSRF ### Performance - N+1 queries - Unnecessary memory allocations - Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths) - Missing database indexes - Unbounded queries or loops - Resource leaks ### Correctness - Edge cases (empty input, null, overflow) - Race conditions and concurrency issues - Error handling and propagation - Off-by-one errors - Type safety ### Maintainability - Naming clarity - Single responsibility - Duplication - Test coverage - Documentation for non-obvious logic ## Output ```markdown ## Code Review: [PR title or file] ### Summary [1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall quality] ### Critical Issues | # | File | Line | Issue | Severity | |---|------|------|-------|----------| | 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | 🔴 Critical | ### Suggestions | # | File | Line | Suggestion | Category | |---|------|------|------------|----------| | 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | Performance | ### What Looks Good - [Positive observations] ### Verdict [Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion] ``` ## If Connectors Available If **~~source control** is connected: - Pull the PR diff automatically from the URL - Check CI status and test results If **~~project tracker** is connected: - Link findings to related tickets - Verify the PR addresses the stated requirements If **~~knowledge base** is connected: - Check changes against team coding standards and style guides ## Tips 1. **Provide context** — "This is a hot path" or "This handles PII" helps me focus. 2. **Specify concerns** — "Focus on security" narrows the review. 3. **Include tests** — I'll check test coverage and quality too.