Stats
Actions
Tags
From code-review
Reviews code for bugs, security issues, quality, complexity, and breaking changes. Use when the user asks to review code, check a PR or branch diff, find bugs or security issues, or says "take a look at this."
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/code-review:code-review-agentThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
When reviewing code, systematically check for common issues across multiple
When reviewing code, systematically check for common issues across multiple dimensions. Provide specific, actionable feedback with line numbers and code examples. Adapt checklist depth to the code's complexity and context — this is a flexible guide, not a rigid process.
Before reviewing, identify which files to check using this priority order:
Explicit path in message — If the user named a file or directory, use it directly. Skip to the Review Checklist.
Local changes (git status) — If no file was specified, run:
git status --short
Branch diff — Run each in order until files are returned:
git diff main...HEAD --name-onlygit diff master...HEAD --name-onlygit diff HEAD~1 --name-only If files are returned, show the list and
confirm before reviewing. Skip non-reviewable files as above. If all return
empty or fail (e.g., detached HEAD), continue to step 4.Fallback — Ask: "Which file or files would you like me to review?"
Once target files are confirmed, proceed to the Review Checklist for each file.
Read references/review-checklist.md for the full six-dimension checklist. Apply each dimension to every file under review.
Structure the review as follows:
Brief overview of the code's purpose and overall quality (1-2 sentences).
[Low / Medium / High / Very High] — One-sentence rationale (e.g., "Deep nesting in 3 core functions and tightly coupled imports drive the rating.").
List any changes that break existing callers, alter contracts, or risk reintroducing previously fixed behavior. For each:
If none detected: No breaking changes or regression risks identified.
If a breaking change also qualifies as a Critical Issue, list it here only — omit it from Critical Issues to avoid duplication.
Issues that could cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or data loss. Must be fixed.
Non-critical issues that would improve code quality, maintainability, or performance.
Things the code does well. Reinforce good practices.
See references/example-review.md for a complete sample review demonstrating the expected output format.
npx claudepluginhub shawn-sandy/agentics --plugin code-reviewReviews git-tracked code changes for architecture, security, performance, quality, and style using multi-agent analysis and diff context. Use for PR readiness checks.
Performs ad-hoc code reviews of PRs, diffs, or files across four dimensions: security, performance, correctness, maintainability. No track context needed.
Provides CDSS development patterns for drug interaction checking, dose validation, clinical scoring (NEWS2, qSOFA), and alert classification integrated into EMR workflows.