Menu
Review changed code for reuse, quality, and efficiency, and produce a triaged list of findings (no edits). Use after writing code, for simpler code with fewer bugs and better performance.
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.
Identify changed code and dispatch reuse, quality, and efficiency reviewer agents in parallel; return the raw findings list.
Provides guidance on good software design principles, with trade-off calibration, examples, and common failure modes. Applies when making decisions while writing, designing, or refactoring code, or evaluating trivial code for clarity, maintainability, and common mistakes.
Reviews code with a team against established software design principles, and returns triaged findings (no edits). Use when evaluating code, or after writing or refactoring complex code, systems or technical designs: for code that is clearer, easier to maintain, and avoids common mistakes.
Shared setup for shaping sessions. Determines if an artefact exists or needs creating, creates it if needed, starts the transcript, reads the type taxonomy. Called by the parent router or by any sub-skill invoked directly.
Shape an artefact through structured Q&A. Routes to the right sub-skill: brainstorm (new/unclear artefacts), refine (open decisions), or discover (exploration-driven artefacts like People and Ideas).
Review changed code for reuse, quality, and efficiency, then fix any issues found.
Based on SOC occupation classification
| name | code-review |
| description | Review changed code for reuse, quality, and efficiency, and produce a triaged list of findings (no edits). Use after writing code, for simpler code with fewer bugs and better performance. |
Run a code review and produce a triaged list of findings. No edits — for fixes, use code-review:fix.
Read and follow investigate/SKILL.md to get the raw findings list. Dispatch reviewers as parallel subagents; do not inline.
Aggregate the findings and decide which are worth applying. Briefly summarise the result for the user — what's worth applying and anything notable being skipped, with the reasoning. If the code was already clean, say so in one line.
