Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

requesting-code-review

Prepares a focused code review request for a branch, commit, pull request, or substantial working-tree diff by defining the review boundary, contract, risk areas, evidence, and questions for an independent reviewer. Use before merge or when another agent needs to review an implementation. Not for processing feedback already received or for claiming runtime correctness.

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

See how to install

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md2.1 KB
  • references/review-request.md485 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Requesting Code Review

Make review cheap to perform and hard to misunderstand.

Prepare the packet

  1. Pin the comparison point and list changed files.
  2. Link the originating request, design, plan, or acceptance criteria.
  3. Summarize the behavior change and deliberately out-of-scope work.
  4. List risky boundaries: data, permissions, concurrency, public API, migrations, performance, compatibility, and user-visible behavior.
  5. Attach focused test/build/runtime evidence with command and result.
  6. Name known limits and ask specific questions rather than “please review.”
  7. Attach or write a short observable behavior contract for user-facing, CLI, API, generated-artifact, or operational changes. Keep it independent of the implementation so a reviewer can request source-blind validation.

Use review-request.md for the packet shape.

Reviewer selection

Ask for an independent pass when the change is public, risky, cross-cutting, security-sensitive, or difficult for its author to judge. Split contract and engineering-risk passes when independent agents are available. Keep the review scope large enough to include direct consumers but not unrelated cleanup.

Do not use a green test suite as a substitute for review, and do not present a review request as evidence that the change is correct. Pair source-aware review with behavior-validation when the change has a runnable public surface; a clean diff review cannot prove that surface works.

Completion condition

The request is ready when a reviewer can locate the contract, boundary, diff, evidence, and highest-risk questions without reconstructing author intent.

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

Designs and runs reproducible evaluations for AI agents, prompts, tools, skills, and model-backed workflows using realistic datasets, isolated baselines, objective assertions, rubric grading, trajectory analysis, cost/latency tracking, and regression comparison. Use when measuring agent quality, optimizing skill triggering, comparing prompts or models, or gating an AI feature release. Not for ordinary deterministic unit tests.

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

thiientv/godmode98Updated Aug 26, 2026

Designs or reviews HTTP, REST, GraphQL, RPC, CLI, webhook, event, and service interfaces with explicit inputs, outputs, errors, compatibility, idempotency, pagination, authentication, versioning, and observability. Use when introducing or changing an API or cross-component contract. Not for internal implementation details with no boundary or for debugging one API failure; use root-cause-debugging there.

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

thiientv/godmode98Updated Aug 26, 2026

Reviews an existing codebase for structural friction, unclear ownership, leaky or shallow interfaces, excessive coupling, misplaced state, poor testability, and risky dependency direction, then prioritizes evidence-backed improvement candidates. Use for architecture audits, modularization, modernization, or recurring cross-cutting change pain. Not for designing one new interface, simplifying a local function, or fixing a reproduced bug.

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

thiientv/godmode98Updated Aug 26, 2026

Validates a running application, CLI, API, service, or generated artifact as a user or operator against a prewritten observable behavior contract while remaining source-blind. Use for acceptance checks, runtime proof, anti-fake probes, release smoke tests, or an independent companion to code review. Not for source-quality findings, root-cause diagnosis, or visual design judgment outside the contract.

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

thiientv/godmode98Updated Aug 26, 2026

Closes a completed development branch by checking the final diff and proof, presenting merge, pull-request, keep, or discard options, and cleaning up only after the user or repository workflow chooses a path. Use when feature work is complete and the branch must be integrated or retired. Not for claiming a feature is complete before verification.

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

thiientv/godmode98Updated Aug 26, 2026

Tests a real web user flow with a browser by asserting semantic behavior, network and loading states, keyboard access, responsive layouts, and stable visual evidence. Use for browser bugs, end-to-end UI behavior, responsive or accessibility checks, and screenshot baselines. Not for static source review without a browser or for backend-only tests.

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

thiientv/godmode98Updated Aug 26, 2026

See all skills by thiientv

Report a problem with this skill