Menu
The review-first prompt is selected by default. You can switch to a direct command or download a local copy.
Read SKILL.md and any companion files shown by SkillsMP before deciding whether to install.
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.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
npx skills add https://github.com/lza6/Claude-code-cli-config --skill code-review-qualityThe command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.
Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.
Showing SKILL.md
| name | code-review-quality |
| description | 代码质量审查 - 进行上下文驱动的代码审查，专注于质量、可测试性和可维护性。适用于审查代码、提供反馈或建立审查实践。 |
| category | 开发实践 |
| priority | 高 |
| tokenEstimate | 900 |
| agents | ["qe-质量分析器","qe-安全扫描器","qe-性能测试器","qe-覆盖率分析器"] |
| implementation_status | 已优化 |
| optimization_version | 1 |
| last_optimized | 2025-12-02T00:00:00.000Z |
| dependencies | [] |
| quick_reference_card | true |
| tags | ["code-review","feedback","quality","testability","maintainability","pr-review"] |
| trust_tier | 2 |
| validation | {"schema_path":"schemas/output.json","validator_path":"scripts/validate-config.json"} |
<default_to_action> When reviewing code or establishing review practices:
Quick Review Checklist:
Critical Success Factors:
| Level | Icon | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blocker | 🔴 | Bug/security/crash | Must fix before merge |
| Major | 🟡 | Logic issue/test gap | Should fix before merge |
| Minor | 🟢 | Style/naming | Nice to fix |
| Suggestion | 💡 | Alternative approach | Consider for future |
| Lines Changed | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| < 200 | Single review session |
| 200-400 | Review in chunks |
| > 400 | Request PR split |
| ✅ Review | ❌ Skip |
|---|---|
| Logic correctness |
| Formatting (use linter) |
| Security risks | Naming preferences |
| Test coverage | Architecture debates |
| Performance issues | Style opinions |
| Error handling | Trivial changes |
🔴 **BLOCKER: SQL Injection Risk**
This query is vulnerable to SQL injection:
```javascript
db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`)
Fix: Use parameterized queries:
db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?', [userId])
Why: User input directly in SQL allows attackers to execute arbitrary queries.
### Major (Should Fix)
```markdown
🟡 **MAJOR: Missing Error Handling**
What happens if `fetchUser()` throws? The error bubbles up unhandled.
**Suggestion:** Add try/catch with appropriate error response:
```javascript
try {
const user = await fetchUser(id);
return user;
} catch (error) {
logger.error('Failed to fetch user', { id, error });
throw new NotFoundError('User not found');
}
### Minor (Nice to Fix)
```markdown
🟢 **minor:** Variable name could be clearer
`d` doesn't convey meaning. Consider `daysSinceLastLogin`.
💡 **suggestion:** Consider extracting this to a helper
This validation logic appears in 3 places. A `validateEmail()` helper would reduce duplication. Not blocking, but might be worth a follow-up PR.
Reviews must meet a minimum weighted finding score of 3.0 (CRITICAL=3, HIGH=2, MEDIUM=1, LOW=0.5, INFORMATIONAL=0.25). If the initial review falls short, run the qe-devils-advocate agent as a meta-reviewer to find additional observations. Every review should have at least 3 actionable observations.
// Comprehensive code review
await Task("Code Review", {
prNumber: 123,
checks: ['security', 'performance', 'testability', 'maintainability'],
feedbackLevels: ['blocker', 'major', 'minor'],
autoApprove: { maxBlockers: 0, maxMajor: 2 }
}, "qe-quality-analyzer");
// Security-focused review
await Task("Security Review", {
prFiles: changedFiles,
scanTypes: ['injection', 'auth', 'secrets', 'dependencies']
}, "qe-security-scanner");
// Test coverage review
await Task("Coverage Review", {
prNumber: 123,
requireNewTests: true,
minCoverageDelta: 0
}, "qe-coverage-analyzer");
aqe/code-review/
├── review-history/* - Past review decisions
├── patterns/* - Common issues by team/repo
├── feedback-templates/* - Reusable feedback
└── metrics/* - Review turnaround time
const reviewFleet = await FleetManager.coordinate({
strategy: 'code-review',
agents: [
'qe-quality-analyzer', // Logic, maintainability
'qe-security-scanner', // Security risks
'qe-performance-tester', // Performance issues
'qe-coverage-analyzer' // Test coverage
],
topology: 'parallel'
});
| ✅ Do | ❌ Don't |
|---|---|
| "Have you considered...?" | "This is wrong" |
| Explain why it matters | Just say "fix this" |
| Acknowledge good code | Only point out negatives |
| Suggest, don't demand | Be condescending |
| Review < 400 lines | Review 2000 lines at once |
Prioritize feedback: 🔴 Blocker → 🟡 Major → 🟢 Minor → 💡 Suggestion. Focus on bugs and security, not style. Ask questions, don't command. Review < 400 lines at a time. Fast feedback (< 24h) beats thorough feedback.
With Agents: Agents automate security, performance, and coverage checks, freeing human reviewers to focus on logic and design. Use agents for consistent, fast initial review.
/security-testing for security-focused review/qe-coverage-analysis on changed files/qe-quality-assessment
Based on SOC occupation classification