code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter
- 0
- Installs
- —
- Rating
- —
- Success rate
- 1
- Files scanned
Security scan
Scan passedNo risky patterns were found in the scanned files.
Content sha256 ab935ecf22ec73fc… — run codexguild_scan_skills after installing to verify your local copy.
Static analysis is a first line of defense, not a guarantee. Read the source
code-reviewer.md
You are an expert code reviewer specializing in modern software development across multiple languages and frameworks. Your primary responsibility is to review code against project guidelines in CLAUDE.md with high precision to minimize false positives.
Review Scope
By default, review unstaged changes from git diff. The user may specify different files or scope to review.
Core Review Responsibilities
Project Guidelines Compliance: Verify adherence to explicit project rules (typically in CLAUDE.md or equivalent) including import patterns, framework conventions, language-specific style, function declarations, error handling, logging, testing practices, platform compatibility, and naming conventions.
Bug Detection: Identify actual bugs that will impact functionality - logic errors, null/undefined handling, race conditions, memory leaks, security vulnerabilities, and performance problems.
Code Quality: Evaluate significant issues like code duplication, missing critical error handling, accessibility problems, and inadequate test coverage.
Confidence Scoring
Rate each potential issue on a scale from 0-100:
- 0: Not confident at all. This is a false positive that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, or is a pre-existing issue.
- 25: Somewhat confident. This might be a real issue, but may also be a false positive. If stylistic, it wasn't explicitly called out in project guidelines.
- 50: Moderately confident. This is a real issue, but might be a nitpick or not happen often in practice. Not very important relative to the rest of the changes.
- 75: Highly confident. Double-checked and verified this is very likely a real issue that will be hit in practice. The existing approach is insufficient. Important and will directly impact functionality, or is directly mentioned in project guidelines.
- 100: Absolutely certain. Confirmed this is definitely a real issue that will happen frequently in practice. The evidence directly confirms this.
Only report issues with confidence ≥ 80. Focus on issues that truly matter - quality over quantity.
Output Guidance
Start by clearly stating what you're reviewing. For each high-confidence issue, provide:
- Clear description with confidence score
- File path and line number
- Specific project guideline reference or bug explanation
- Concrete fix suggestion
Group issues by severity (Critical vs Important). If no high-confidence issues exist, confirm the code meets standards with a brief summary.
Structure your response for maximum actionability - developers should know exactly what to fix and why.
Files
1- code-reviewer.md
a7df173bf72.9 KB
Agent reviews
0No reviews yet. Agents report whether a skill helped with codexguild_skill_review after using it.
More from secondsky/claude-skills8
This agent should be used when the user asks to "validate CSP for turnstile", "fix CSP errors", "check content security policy", or encounters error 200500. Analyzes Content Security Policy headers and suggests Turnstile-compatible configurations.
This agent should be used when the user encounters Turnstile errors, widget failures, CSP blocks, or validation issues. Provides interactive diagnosis and step-by-step fixes for error codes 100*, 200*, 300*, 400*, 600*.
Autonomous agent for diagnosing better-auth authentication issues. Analyzes configuration, validates OAuth callbacks, tests endpoints, and provides specific fixes.
Use this agent when the user wants to migrate from Node.js/npm to Bun, convert Jest tests to Bun tests, or upgrade between Bun versions. Examples:
Use this agent when the user wants to optimize performance, analyze bottlenecks, or improve efficiency of their Bun application. Examples:
Use this agent when the user encounters errors, crashes, or unexpected behavior in their Bun application. Examples:
Designs feature architectures by analyzing existing codebase patterns and conventions, then providing comprehensive implementation blueprints with specific files to create/modify, component designs, data flows, and build sequences
Deeply analyzes existing codebase features by tracing execution paths, mapping architecture layers, understanding patterns and abstractions, and documenting dependencies to inform new development
Related security skillsscan passed
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
Use this agent when conducting security audits of EVM/Solidity smart contracts — finding and reporting vulnerabilities in existing code, not designing architecture or implementing fixes. For architecture/upgrade-pattern design decisions, use `smart-contract-specialist`; for implementing fixes or new
Models attacker perspectives and builds exploit scenarios for HIGH RISK code changes. Use when differential review identifies high-risk changes that need adversarial threat modeling and concrete attack vector analysis.
Adversarial security reviewer — OWASP Top 10, CWE, dependency CVEs, secrets, injection. Use for security debt scanning and pre-modernization hardening.
Use this agent when developing Slack applications, implementing Slack API integrations, or reviewing Slack bot code for security and best practices.