code-review

Stars0

Forks0

UpdatedJune 10, 2026 at 12:49

Review code and data pipeline changes for correctness, security, performance, maintainability, contract breaks, and missing verification. Use before merge, after implementation, for PRs, commits, pending diffs, or codebase risk scans.

Installation

Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.

Source

datacoolie

datacoolie/dekit

View GitHub Repository View Creator Repositories

Download

Related occupationsSOC

Based on SOC occupation classification

Software Quality Assurance Analysts and TestersComputer and Mathematical Occupations·SOC 15-1253

SKILL.md

readonly

name	code-review
description	Review code and data pipeline changes for correctness, security, performance, maintainability, contract breaks, and missing verification. Use before merge, after implementation, for PRs, commits, pending diffs, or codebase risk scans.

Code Review

Review adversarially. Findings require evidence from code, diff, tests, or runtime behavior.

Scope Resolution

PR or URL: review PR diff.
Commit hash: review that commit.
--pending: review staged and unstaged changes.
codebase: scan broader architecture/risk surface.
No explicit target: review recent changes in context or ask for target.

Review Order

Establish scope and changed files.
Check requirement/spec compliance.
Scout affected dependents and edge cases.
Review correctness, contracts, security, performance, tests.
Separate blocking findings from non-blocking observations.

Checklist

Contract breaks: API, schema, grain, metric, config, behavior.
Error handling: no silent swallowing or hidden partial failure.
Validation: inputs checked at trust and data boundaries.
Security: no secrets, PII leaks, injection, auth/authz gaps.
Data correctness: idempotency, schema evolution, quality gates, reconciliation.
Performance: query fan-out, Spark collect/cartesian/skew, unbounded loops.
Maintainability: clear ownership, no duplicated business logic, no speculative abstraction.
Verification: tests or direct checks prove the changed behavior.

Severity

Critical: security exposure, data loss, breaking contract, irreversible damage.
High: likely production failure, wrong results, missing required verification.
Medium: maintainability or performance risk with plausible impact.
Low: style or cleanup that does not block.

Output

Lead with findings:

Findings:
- [Critical|High|Medium|Low] file:line - issue, impact, evidence, fix

Open questions:
- ...

Summary:
- Reviewed: <scope>
- Verification observed: <commands/results or missing>

More from this repository

same repository

wiki

datacoolie/dekit

Build and maintain an internal technical LLM wiki when the user requests wiki work or a verified major or architectural change qualifies for automatic wiki review. Use for project memory, architecture notes, contracts, runbooks, decisions, glossary, incremental ingest, delta status, and wiki health. Do not use merely because a routine task or plan completed.

2026-07-180

brainstorm

datacoolie/dekit

Explore ambiguous ideas and solution directions before evidence-backed research or implementation planning. Use for ideation, framing, assumption checks, option generation, product or architecture trade-offs, and deciding whether research or a plan is needed.

2026-07-030

research

datacoolie/dekit

Research technical options with source-backed recommendations. Use for technology evaluation, architecture trade-offs, library/framework choices, best practices, scalability, security, maintainability, or when current external facts matter.

2026-07-030

plan

datacoolie/dekit

Create implementation plans, architecture decisions, and phased roadmaps. Use for Standard or Complex changes, new pipelines, schema changes, migrations, multi-file features, technology choices, or when acceptance criteria and verification strategy are unclear.

2026-06-170

data-ingestion

datacoolie/dekit

Design data ingestion into landing/bronze layers. Use for source onboarding, transfer pattern selection, full/incremental/CDC scope, change detection, landing zones, schema drift, idempotent file or batch processing, and ingestion quality gates.

2026-06-100

data-modeling

datacoolie/dekit

Design warehouse and semantic data models. Use for grain definition, fact/dimension design, star schema, Kimball, Data Vault, SCD, bridge tables, surrogate keys, semantic metrics, and model review.

2026-06-100

name	code-review
description	Review code and data pipeline changes for correctness, security, performance, maintainability, contract breaks, and missing verification. Use before merge, after implementation, for PRs, commits, pending diffs, or codebase risk scans.

Code Review

Review adversarially. Findings require evidence from code, diff, tests, or runtime behavior.

Scope Resolution

PR or URL: review PR diff.
Commit hash: review that commit.
--pending: review staged and unstaged changes.
codebase: scan broader architecture/risk surface.
No explicit target: review recent changes in context or ask for target.

Review Order

Establish scope and changed files.
Check requirement/spec compliance.
Scout affected dependents and edge cases.
Review correctness, contracts, security, performance, tests.
Separate blocking findings from non-blocking observations.

Checklist

Contract breaks: API, schema, grain, metric, config, behavior.
Error handling: no silent swallowing or hidden partial failure.
Validation: inputs checked at trust and data boundaries.
Security: no secrets, PII leaks, injection, auth/authz gaps.
Data correctness: idempotency, schema evolution, quality gates, reconciliation.
Performance: query fan-out, Spark collect/cartesian/skew, unbounded loops.
Maintainability: clear ownership, no duplicated business logic, no speculative abstraction.
Verification: tests or direct checks prove the changed behavior.

Severity

Critical: security exposure, data loss, breaking contract, irreversible damage.
High: likely production failure, wrong results, missing required verification.
Medium: maintainability or performance risk with plausible impact.
Low: style or cleanup that does not block.

Output

Lead with findings:

Findings:
- [Critical|High|Medium|Low] file:line - issue, impact, evidence, fix

Open questions:
- ...

Summary:
- Reviewed: <scope>
- Verification observed: <commands/results or missing>