Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

code-review-guide

Review a pull request or diff like a thoughtful senior engineer — prioritized, kind, and focused on what matters. Use when reviewing code, giving PR feedback, or asked to 'review this change'. Produces a structured review: a correctness/design pass, comments ranked by severity (blocking → nit), what's done well, and a clear approve / request-changes call — feedback that improves the code and the author.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md3.7 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Code Review Guide Skill

Bad code review nitpicks style while missing the design flaw, or dumps 40 ungraded comments. Good review is prioritized and kind: it catches what actually matters (correctness, security, design), separates blocking issues from nits, explains the why, and leaves the author better. This skill runs that review.

Not quite this? Use code-review-checklist when you only need a checklist tailored to one change; use ai-code-review when most of the change was written by an AI assistant; use infra-as-code-review when the change is Terraform, CloudFormation or other infrastructure code.

Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:

  • The change — the diff/PR, and ideally its description/intent (what it's trying to do).
  • Context — language/stack, conventions, the part of the system it touches, risk level.
  • Focus (optional) — anything specific to scrutinize (security, performance, a tricky area).

Output Format

Review: [PR / change]

Summary — in 1–2 lines: what the change does and your overall read (solid / needs work / risky).

Review passes — scan in priority order and note findings:

  1. Correctness — does it do what it claims? Edge cases, error handling, off-by-ones, concurrency.
  2. Security & data — input validation, authz, secrets, injection, PII handling.
  3. Design — is this the right approach? Coupling, the seam, simpler alternative, future pain.
  4. Tests — do they cover the behavior and the edges? Would they catch a regression?
  5. Readability — names, clarity, dead code, docs where non-obvious.

Comments (ranked by severity) — each with file/line, the issue, why it matters, and a concrete suggestion:

SeverityWhereComment & whySuggested change
🔴 Blocking
🟡 Should-fix
🔵 Nit / optional

What's done well — genuinely (specific, not flattery). Reviews are also for morale and learning.

Verdict — ✅ Approve / 🔁 Request changes / 💬 Comment — with the one or two things that gate it.

Quality Checks

  • Correctness, security, and design are reviewed before style — priority order
  • Comments are ranked by severity (blocking vs. should-fix vs. nit), not a flat list
  • Each comment explains why and offers a concrete suggestion, not just "this is wrong"
  • At least one specific thing done well is noted
  • A clear verdict (approve / request changes) with the gating issues named
  • Tone is direct but kind — critiques the code, not the author

Anti-Patterns

  • Do not nitpick style while missing a correctness or security problem — priority first
  • Do not dump ungraded comments — rank them so the author knows what's blocking
  • Do not say "this is wrong" without why and a suggested fix
  • Do not rewrite it your way for taste — respect working approaches; flag real issues
  • Do not be a jerk — review the code, acknowledge good work, keep the author motivated

Based On

Senior code-review practice (Google's engineering review guidelines): prioritize correctness/design, severity-tag feedback, be kind.

Example Trigger Phrases

  • "Review code."
  • "Give PR feedback."
  • "Review this change."

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Design a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1.5KUpdated Oct 21, 2026

Decode a 401k or workplace retirement plan — the real cost of its funds, the match's fine print, vesting math, and the plan features worth using or avoiding. Use when someone asks 'is my 401k any good', 'decode my 401k plan', 'which funds should I look at', or 'what fees am I paying'. Produces a fee decode in dollars-over-time, match and vesting math, a fund-lineup triage by cost, and the questions for HR or the plan administrator.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1.5KUpdated Oct 21, 2026

Design statistically rigorous A/B tests for product features, UI changes, onboarding flows, and pricing experiments. Use when asked to set up an experiment, design an A/B test, calculate sample size, or interpret test results. Produces a complete test plan with hypothesis, variant definitions, sample size, duration estimate, guardrail metrics, and a results interpretation guide.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1.5KUpdated Oct 21, 2026

Analyse a finished A/B test and write the readout — the result, whether it's statistically and practically significant, what it means, and the ship/no-ship call. Use when asked to analyse experiment results, write an A/B test readout, interpret test data, or decide whether to ship a variant. Produces a clear verdict with the lift and confidence, segment cuts, the risks (peeking, novelty, sample), and a recommendation. Distinct from planning a test — this reads results.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1.5KUpdated Oct 21, 2026

Build or tailor an academic CV for faculty, postdoc, research or fellowship applications: publications, grants, teaching, supervision and service in the order the field expects, with consistent citations. Use when asked to write my academic CV, update my CV for a lectureship, tenure-track or postdoc application, format my publications list, or adapt my academic CV for an industry research role. Produces the full academic CV, a field-appropriate section order, a clean publications list in one citation style, and a two-page summary version when asked.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1.5KUpdated Oct 21, 2026

Generate a WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit checklist and remediation suggestions for any UI or design. Use when asked to audit for accessibility, check WCAG compliance, review a design for a11y issues, or create an accessibility remediation plan. Produces a prioritised checklist with pass/fail assessments and specific fixes.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1.5KUpdated Oct 21, 2026

See all skills by mohitagw15856

Report a problem with this skill