Run any Skill in Manus with one click

Get Started

review-guide

Stars2

Forks0

UpdatedMarch 21, 2026 at 03:34

Structured code review guidance for pull requests and diffs

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.

Run Skill in Manus

Source

julianshen

julianshen/rubichan

View GitHub Repository View Creator Repositories

Download

Run Skill in Manus

Related occupationsSOC

Based on SOC occupation classification

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

SKILL.md

readonly

name	review-guide
description	Structured code review guidance for pull requests and diffs
triggers	{"keywords":["review","PR","pull request","diff"],"modes":["interactive","headless"]}

Guide for conducting effective, actionable code reviews.

Thinking Phase

Before reviewing, analyze:

Scope: Is this a bug fix, feature, refactor, or config change?
Risk: What's the blast radius? (data model change > UI tweak)
Conventions: What patterns does this codebase already use?
Focus: What matters most for THIS specific change?

Approaches

Prioritize review focus based on the change type:

Correctness-first: Bug fixes, data handling, state management
Security-first: Auth changes, input handling, API endpoints
Architecture-first: New abstractions, interface changes, dependency additions
Performance-first: Hot paths, database queries, serialization

Choose the lens that fits the change. Most reviews need only one primary focus.

Anti-Patterns

NEVER:

Nitpick formatting that a linter should catch (indentation, trailing whitespace)
Suggest rewriting working code that isn't part of the change
Flag issues without providing a concrete fix or alternative
Treat all issues as equal severity — distinguish critical from minor
Bikeshed naming unless the name is actively misleading
Request changes for personal style preferences

Calibration

Match review depth to change risk:

Trivial (typo fix, comment update) → Approve with minimal comment
Routine (standard feature, clear tests) → Focus on edge cases and test coverage
Significant (new abstraction, API change) → Deep review of design, error handling, backwards compatibility
Critical (security, data migration) → Line-by-line review, request additional reviewers

Verification

Before delivering review:

Every issue includes severity (critical/major/minor/nit)
Critical issues have concrete fix suggestions
Positive feedback included for good patterns found
Review addresses the change's actual purpose, not hypothetical improvements

More from this repository

same repository

frontend-design

julianshen/rubichan

Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Use this skill when the user asks to build web components, pages, or applications. Generates creative, polished code that avoids generic AI aesthetics.

2026-03-152

ui-ux-pro-max

julianshen/rubichan

UI/UX design intelligence. 67 styles, 96 palettes, 57 font pairings, 25 charts, 13 stacks (React, Next.js, Astro, Vue, Nuxt.js, Nuxt UI, Svelte, SwiftUI, React Native, Flutter, Tailwind, shadcn/ui, Jetpack Compose). Actions: plan, build, create, design, implement, review, fix, improve, optimize, enhance, refactor, check UI/UX code. Projects: website, landing page, dashboard, admin panel, e-commerce, SaaS, portfolio, blog, mobile app, .html, .tsx, .vue, .svelte. Elements: button, modal, navbar, sidebar, card, table, form, chart. Styles: glassmorphism, claymorphism, minimalism, brutalism, neumorphism, bento grid, dark mode, responsive, skeuomorphism, flat design. Topics: color palette, accessibility, animation, layout, typography, font pairing, spacing, hover, shadow, gradient. Integrations: shadcn/ui MCP for component search and examples.

2026-03-082

name	review-guide
description	Structured code review guidance for pull requests and diffs
triggers	{"keywords":["review","PR","pull request","diff"],"modes":["interactive","headless"]}

Guide for conducting effective, actionable code reviews.

Thinking Phase

Before reviewing, analyze:

Scope: Is this a bug fix, feature, refactor, or config change?
Risk: What's the blast radius? (data model change > UI tweak)
Conventions: What patterns does this codebase already use?
Focus: What matters most for THIS specific change?

Approaches

Prioritize review focus based on the change type:

Correctness-first: Bug fixes, data handling, state management
Security-first: Auth changes, input handling, API endpoints
Architecture-first: New abstractions, interface changes, dependency additions
Performance-first: Hot paths, database queries, serialization

Choose the lens that fits the change. Most reviews need only one primary focus.

Anti-Patterns

NEVER:

Nitpick formatting that a linter should catch (indentation, trailing whitespace)
Suggest rewriting working code that isn't part of the change
Flag issues without providing a concrete fix or alternative
Treat all issues as equal severity — distinguish critical from minor
Bikeshed naming unless the name is actively misleading
Request changes for personal style preferences

Calibration

Match review depth to change risk:

Trivial (typo fix, comment update) → Approve with minimal comment
Routine (standard feature, clear tests) → Focus on edge cases and test coverage
Significant (new abstraction, API change) → Deep review of design, error handling, backwards compatibility
Critical (security, data migration) → Line-by-line review, request additional reviewers

Verification

Before delivering review:

Every issue includes severity (critical/major/minor/nit)
Critical issues have concrete fix suggestions
Positive feedback included for good patterns found
Review addresses the change's actual purpose, not hypothetical improvements