본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

python-code-review

Reviews Python code for type safety, async patterns, error handling, and common mistakes. Use when reviewing .py files, checking type hints, async/await usage, or exception handling.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(6)

  • SKILL.md4.6 KB
  • references/async-patterns.md2.4 KB
  • references/common-mistakes.md2.7 KB
  • references/error-handling.md2.4 KB
  • references/pep8-style.md4.0 KB
  • references/type-safety.md1.9 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Python Code Review

Quick Reference

Issue TypeReference
Indentation, line length, whitespace, namingreferences/pep8-style.md
Missing/wrong type hints, Any usagereferences/type-safety.md
Blocking calls in async, missing awaitreferences/async-patterns.md
Bare except, missing context, loggingreferences/error-handling.md
Mutable defaults, print statementsreferences/common-mistakes.md

Review Checklist

PEP8 Style

  • 4-space indentation (no tabs)
  • Line length ≤79 characters (≤72 for docstrings/comments)
  • Two blank lines around top-level definitions, one within classes
  • Imports grouped: stdlib → third-party → local (blank line between groups)
  • No whitespace inside brackets or before colons/commas
  • Naming: snake_case for functions/variables, CamelCase for classes, UPPER_CASE for constants
  • Inline comments separated by at least two spaces

Type Safety

  • Type hints on all function parameters and return types
  • No Any unless necessary (with comment explaining why)
  • Proper T | None syntax (Python 3.10+)

Async Patterns

  • No blocking calls (time.sleep, requests) in async functions
  • Proper await on all coroutines

Error Handling

  • No bare except: clauses
  • Specific exception types with context
  • raise ... from to preserve stack traces

Common Mistakes

  • No mutable default arguments
  • Using logger not print() for output
  • f-strings preferred over .format() or %

Valid Patterns (Do NOT Flag)

These patterns are intentional and correct - do not report as issues:

  • Type annotation vs type assertion - Annotations declare types but are not runtime assertions; don't confuse with missing validation
  • Using Any when interacting with untyped libraries - Required when external libraries lack type stubs
  • Empty __init__.py files - Valid for package structure, no code required
  • noqa comments - Valid when linter rule doesn't apply to specific case
  • Using cast() after runtime type check - Correct pattern to inform type checker of narrowed type

Context-Sensitive Rules

Only flag these issues when the specific conditions apply:

IssueFlag ONLY IF
Generic exception handlingSpecific exception types are available and meaningful
Unused variablesVariable lacks _ prefix AND isn't used in f-strings, logging, or debugging

Gates (reporting workflow)

Complete in order. Do not advance until each pass condition is met.

  1. Scope — Pass: You list every .py path (or explicit glob) you inspected this run.
  2. False-positive screen — Pass: For each issue you plan to report, you checked Valid Patterns and Context-Sensitive Rules above; you drop or narrow the finding if those sections say not to flag it.
  3. Evidence — Pass: Each remaining finding includes [FILE:LINE] (or a bounded line range). Symbols or short verbatim snippets may supplement the location anchor but do not replace it.
  4. Verification protocol — Pass: You load review-verification-protocol and complete its mandatory steps for each reported issue before the user-facing write-up.
  5. Ship — Pass: The user-visible output matches whatever structure that protocol requires (no issues-only dump that skips its checks).

When to Load References

  • Reviewing code formatting/style → pep8-style.md
  • Reviewing function signatures → type-safety.md
  • Reviewing async def functions → async-patterns.md
  • Reviewing try/except blocks → error-handling.md
  • General Python review → common-mistakes.md

Review Questions

  1. Does the code follow PEP8 formatting (indentation, line length, whitespace)?
  2. Are imports properly grouped (stdlib → third-party → local)?
  3. Do names follow conventions (snake_case, CamelCase, UPPER_CASE)?
  4. Are all function signatures fully typed?
  5. Are async functions truly non-blocking?
  6. Do exceptions include meaningful context?
  7. Are there any mutable default arguments?

Before reporting: complete Gates (reporting workflow) above (especially gate 4).

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Use when you need to mine a conversation, session transcript, or design discussion for architectural decisions before writing ADRs. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off debates, technology choices, and explicit "[ADR]" tags. Triggers on "what decisions did we make", "extract decisions from this chat", "find the choices in our discussion", or "summarize architectural decisions". Also useful after long planning sessions to capture decisions that were made implicitly. Does NOT write ADR documents — use adr-writing or write-adr for that.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Use when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on "write the ADR", "format as MADR", "check ADR quality", "mark gaps in ADR". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Use when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on "analyze agent architecture", "12-factor audit", "how compliant is this agent", or "evaluate this LLM app". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists — this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Vercel AI Elements for workflow UI components. Use when building chat interfaces, displaying tool execution, showing reasoning/thinking, or creating job queues. Triggers on ai-elements, Queue, Confirmation, Tool, Reasoning, Shimmer, Loader, Message, Conversation, PromptInput.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Reviews App Intents code for intent structure, entities, shortcuts, and parameters. Use when reviewing code with import AppIntents, @AppIntent, AppEntity, AppShortcutsProvider, or @Parameter.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Use when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: "analyze these docs", "scan my project for context", "read the docs folder", "summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/", "extract context from docs/", "what's in this folder", "go read everything in X and tell me what's there". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

existential-birds의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고