Skip to main content Skills Marketplace Discover and explore AI skills built by the community.
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.
Show prompt details A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
npx skills add https://github.com/tomevault-io/skills-registry --skill eia-code-review-patternsThe command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.
Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.
Download Zip Downloading... name eia-code-review-patterns description Use when reviewing pull requests. Trigger with PR review or code quality requests. license Apache-2.0 compatibility Requires intermediate software development experience and familiarity with code review basics. Designed for reviewers analyzing pull requests with 1-30+ file changes using an 8-dimensional evaluation framework. Requires AI Maestro installed. triggers ["Review a pull request for quality and issues","Assess code changes before merge","Perform quick scan followed by deep dive analysis","Evaluate code across 8 dimensions (functional, architecture, quality, performance, security, testing, compatibility, documentation)","Review this PR","Check this code for issues"] metadata {"author":"Emasoft","version":"1.0.0"} agent eia-main context fork workflow-instruction Step 21 procedure proc-evaluate-pr user-invocable false
Code Review Patterns Skill
Overview
This skill teaches the two-stage code review methodology for comprehensive PR analysis.
Prerequisites
Before using this skill, ensure:
Intermediate software development experience
Familiarity with code review basics and pull request workflows
Access to the repository containing the PR to review
Python 3.8+ for running helper scripts
Output
Output Type Format Contents Quick Scan Report Markdown table File structure, diff magnitude, obvious issues, initial confidence score (0-100%), Go/No-Go decision Deep Dive Report Markdown table 8-dimension analysis with individual scores, final confidence score (0-100%), approval/rejection decision, actionable feedback Final Review Document Markdown Complete review with both stages, confidence calculations, decision rationale, merge/rejection status
Instructions
Receive PR review request from EOA or user via AI MaestroPerform Gate 0 compliance check - Verify requirements using references/requirement-compliance.md Execute Stage 1: Quick Scan - Surface-level assessment using references/stage-one-quick-scan.md
Assess file structure and diff magnitude
Identify obvious issues and red flags
Calculate initial confidence score
Make Go/No-Go decision (proceed if ≥70% confidence)
Execute Stage 2: Deep Dive - Full 8-dimension analysis using references/stage-two-deep-dive.md
Evaluate all 8 dimensions (Functional, Architecture, Quality, Performance, Security, Testing, Compatibility, Documentation)
Calculate final confidence score
Make approval/rejection decision (approve if ≥80% confidence)
Run quality gates - Execute tests, verify linting, check documentation
Create final review report using scripts/review_report_generator.py
Merge or reject PR based on final decision
Close related issues if PR is merged
Report completion to requesting agent via AI Maestro
Checklist Copy this checklist and track your progress:
Core Methodology: Two-Stage Review Process The skill is built on a structured two-stage approach:
Stage One: Quick Scan (Small Scope)
Initial surface-level assessment
Identification of obvious issues
Scope: File structure + diff magnitude review
Confidence scoring threshold: 70%+
Go/No-Go decision point
Stage Two: Deep Dive (Full Scope)
Comprehensive multi-dimensional analysis
Root cause investigation
Scope: All 8 dimensions across all changed components
Confidence scoring threshold: 80%+
Final approval/rejection decision
Key Concepts
Confidence Scoring System Confidence scoring represents the reviewer's certainty about the quality assessment. Scores range from 0-100%:
80-100% : High confidence - Ready for approval60-79% : Medium confidence - Requires additional review or clarificationBelow 60% : Low confidence - Defer decision, escalate for expert review The 80% threshold ensures that code reviews maintain quality standards before approval.
Multi-Dimensional Analysis Code review examines code across 8 dimensions simultaneously:
Functional Correctness - Does the code do what it should?Architecture & Design - Is the structure sound and maintainable?Code Quality - Is the code clean, readable, and well-documented?Performance - Does the code perform adequately?Security - Are there vulnerabilities or compliance issues?Testing - Is there adequate test coverage?Backward Compatibility - Does it break existing interfaces?Documentation - Is it adequately documented for future maintainers?
Reference Documents
5.1 Gate 0: Requirement Compliance Overview
5.2 Gate 0 Checklist Template
5.3 Review Checklist Additions
5.3.1 Requirement Traceability
5.3.2 Technology Compliance
5.3.3 Scope Compliance
5.4 Forbidden Review Approvals
5.5 Correct Review Approach
1.1 Objective and Purpose
1.2 Scope Targets by PR Size
1.2.1 Small PRs (1-10 files)
1.2.2 Medium PRs (11-30 files)
1.2.3 Large PRs (30+ files)
1.3 Step-by-Step Quick Scan Process
1.3.1 File Structure Assessment
1.3.2 Diff Magnitude Review
1.3.3 Obvious Issue Scan
1.3.4 Immediate Red Flags Detection
1.3.5 Quick Confidence Assessment
1.4 Quick Scan Output Format Template
1.5 Go/No-Go Decision Criteria
2.1 Objective and Purpose
2.2 Scope Coverage by PR Size
2.3 Eight Dimension Analysis Overview
2.3.1 Dimension 1: Functional Correctness
2.3.2 Dimension 2: Architecture & Design
2.3.3 Dimension 3: Code Quality
2.3.4 Dimension 4: Performance
2.3.5 Dimension 5: Security
2.3.6 Dimension 6: Testing
2.3.7 Dimension 7: Backward Compatibility
2.3.8 Dimension 8: Documentation
2.4 Confidence Score Calculation Method
2.5 Final Decision Making Thresholds
2.6 Deep Dive Output Format Template
3.1 Four-Phase Workflow Overview
3.1.1 Phase 1: Initial Assessment
3.1.2 Phase 2: Quick Scan (Stage One)
3.1.3 Phase 3: Deep Dive (Stage Two)
3.1.4 Phase 4: Feedback & Resolution
3.2 Confidence Scoring Decision Tree
3.3 Decision Flow Diagram
3.4 Handling Edge Cases
4.1 Complete Implementation Checklist
4.1.1 Setup Phase Checklist
4.1.2 Stage One: Quick Scan Checklist
4.1.3 Stage Two: Deep Dive Checklist
4.1.4 Scoring & Decision Checklist
4.1.5 Follow-up Checklist
4.2 Quick Reference Tables
4.2.1 Confidence Score Ranges
4.2.2 Scope Complexity Guide
4.2.3 Dimension Weight Summary
6.1 Overview - Purpose of the Pre-PR quality gate
6.2 The 4 Validation Steps
6.2.1 Step 1: All Tests Pass Locally
6.2.2 Step 2: No Linting Errors
6.2.3 Step 3: Documentation Updated
6.2.4 Step 4: Changelog Entry Added
6.3 Checklist Template
6.4 Automation - Scripts to run before every PR
When writing commit messages after review approval → Commit message format and conventions
If you need to verify commit message compliance → Commit message validation rules
When squashing commits before merge → Squash commit best practices
If you're reviewing commit history → Commit structure guidelines
When coordinating review with other agents → Review coordination workflow
If you need to delegate review tasks → Task delegation patterns
When receiving review requests → Request handling procedures
If you're reporting review results → Review reporting format
Dimension-Specific References
When you need to verify core functionality → Verification Checklist: Core Functionality
If you need to check logic correctness → Verification Checklist: Logic Correctness
When reviewing data flow → Verification Checklist: Data Flow
If you're concerned about input validation → Verification Checklist: Input Validation
When verifying output → Verification Checklist: Output Verification
If you suspect logic errors → Common Issues to Look For
When evaluating SOLID principles adherence → Verification Checklist: Architectural Principles
If you're concerned about code organization → Verification Checklist: Code Organization
When verifying design patterns are appropriate → Verification Checklist: Design Patterns
If you need to review API design → Verification Checklist: API Design
When assessing data structure choices → Verification Checklist: Data Structures
If you're checking dependencies → Verification Checklist: Dependencies
If you suspect architecture issues → Common Issues to Look For
When checking if code is readable → Verification Checklist: Readability
If you need to verify naming conventions → Verification Checklist: Naming Conventions
When assessing code complexity → Verification Checklist: Code Complexity
If you're reviewing comments and documentation → Verification Checklist: Comments and Documentation
When evaluating code organization → Verification Checklist: Code Organization
If you need to assess error handling → Verification Checklist: Error Handling
When detecting code quality issues → Verification Checklist: Code Smells
When reviewing algorithm efficiency → Verification Checklist: Algorithm Efficiency
If you need to evaluate data structure choices → Verification Checklist: Data Structure Selection
When assessing database performance → Verification Checklist: Database Performance
If you're concerned about I/O operations → Verification Checklist: I/O Operations
When checking memory management → Verification Checklist: Memory Management
If you need to verify concurrency handling → Verification Checklist: Concurrency
When evaluating caching strategy → Verification Checklist: Caching
When validating input handling → Verification Checklist: Input Validation
If you're reviewing authentication and authorization → Verification Checklist: Authentication & Authorization
When checking sensitive data protection → Verification Checklist: Data Protection
If you're concerned about SQL injection → Verification Checklist: SQL Injection Prevention
When verifying XSS protection → Verification Checklist: XSS Prevention
If you need to check CSRF protection → Verification Checklist: CSRF Protection
When reviewing cryptography usage → Verification Checklist: Cryptography
If you're assessing dependency security → Verification Checklist: Dependency Security
When reviewing test coverage → Verification Checklist: Test Coverage
If you need to evaluate test quality → Verification Checklist: Test Quality
When assessing test types used → Verification Checklist: Test Types
If you're reviewing test data setup → Verification Checklist: Test Data
When evaluating mocking strategies → Verification Checklist: Mocking and Stubbing
If you need to check assertions → Verification Checklist: Assertions
When assessing test maintenance → Verification Checklist: Test Maintenance
If you're reviewing CI/CD integration → Verification Checklist: Continuous Integration
When reviewing API compatibility → Verification Checklist: API Compatibility
If you need to verify data compatibility → Verification Checklist: Data Compatibility
When checking behavioral compatibility → Verification Checklist: Behavioral Compatibility
If you're concerned about deprecation → Verification Checklist: Deprecation Strategy
When verifying versioning practices → Verification Checklist: Versioning
If you need to assess client impact → Verification Checklist: Client Impact
If you suspect breaking changes → Common Issues to Look For
When reviewing code documentation → Verification Checklist: Code Documentation
If you need to evaluate docstring quality → Verification Checklist: Docstring Quality
When checking API documentation → Verification Checklist: API Documentation
If you're reviewing architecture documentation → Verification Checklist: Architecture Documentation
When assessing code comments → Verification Checklist: Code Comments
If you're reviewing README → Verification Checklist: README
When evaluating configuration documentation → Verification Checklist: Configuration Documentation
If you're checking error messages → Verification Checklist: Error Messages
Troubleshooting References
If you need to understand the problem → Problem Description
When analyzing why reviews are slow → Root Causes
If you're looking for immediate fixes → Solutions and Workarounds
When preventing slow reviews → Prevention Strategies
If you need to measure improvement → Measuring Improvement
If you need to understand the problem → Problem Description
When analyzing why calibration issues occur → Root Causes
If you're looking for fixes → Solutions and Workarounds
When preventing calibration issues → Prevention Strategies
If you need to measure improvement → Measuring Calibration
If you need to understand the problem → Problem Description
When analyzing why coverage is incomplete → Root Causes
If you're looking for solutions → Solutions and Workarounds
When preventing coverage gaps → Prevention Strategies
If you need to identify gaps → Identifying Coverage Gaps
If you need to understand the problem → Problem Description
When analyzing why disagreements occur → Root Causes
If you're looking for solutions → Solutions and Workarounds
When preventing disagreements → Prevention Strategies
When dealing with specific disagreement scenarios → Specific Disagreement Scenarios
Quick Reference Tables
Confidence Score Ranges Score Range Decision Action 80-100% Approved Merge immediately 70-79% Quick Scan only Proceed to Deep Dive 60-79% Conditional Request specific changes Below 60% Rejected Major rework needed
Dimension Weight Summary Dimension Weight Primary Question Functional Correctness 20% Does it work? Security 20% Is it safe? Testing 15% Is it verified? Architecture 15% Is it sustainable? Backward Compatibility 15% Does it break things? Code Quality 10% Is it maintainable? Performance 5% Is it efficient? Documentation 5% Is it explained?
Scripts Available
scripts/quick_scan_template.py - Generate quick scan reportscripts/deep_dive_calculator.py - Calculate confidence scoresscripts/review_report_generator.py - Create final review document
Examples
1.1 When reviewing a PR from EOA - Example: Review and Merge PR
1.2 When verifying issue closure - Example: Issue Closure Requirements Check
1.3 When using scripts for quick scan - Example: Script-Based Quick Scan
1.4 When performing full two-stage review - Example: Complete Two-Stage Review with Scripts
Error Handling
Slow Reviews
Reviewer Calibration Issues
Coverage Gaps
Reviewer Disagreements
AI Maestro Communication Templates
Template 1: Receiving PR Review Request When receiving a PR review request from EOA or another agent, check your inbox using the agent-messaging skill. Filter for messages with content.type == "pr-review-request".
Template 2: Reporting Review Completion to EOA After completing a code review, notify the requesting agent. Send a message using the agent-messaging skill with:
Recipient : orchestrator-eoaSubject : Code Review Complete: PR #123Priority : normalContent : {"type": "review-complete", "message": "PR #123 review completed. Confidence: 85%. Decision: APPROVED. Details: docs_dev/integration/reports/pr-123-review.md"}Verify : Confirm the message was delivered by checking the agent-messaging skill send confirmation.
Template 3: Requesting Clarification from Author When review requires author input, send a message using the agent-messaging skill with:
Recipient : The PR author agent nameSubject : Review Question: PR #123Priority : normalContent : {"type": "clarification-request", "message": "During review of PR #123, need clarification on: [SPECIFIC QUESTION]. Please respond with context."}Verify : Confirm the message was delivered by checking the agent-messaging skill send confirmation.
Template 4: Escalating Quality Gate Failure When a critical quality gate fails, send a message using the agent-messaging skill with:
Recipient : orchestrator-eoaSubject : [QUALITY GATE FAILED] PR #123Priority : urgentContent : {"type": "quality-gate-failure", "message": "PR #123 failed quality gate: SECURITY. Issue: SQL injection in auth.py:42. Action required: reject and request fix."}Verify : Confirm the message was delivered by checking the agent-messaging skill send confirmation.
Resources
Getting Started
Version : 1.0
Last Updated : 2025-01-01
Skill Type : Code Review Methodology
Difficulty : Intermediate
Required Knowledge : Software development, code review basics
Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.
More from this repository
Related occupations SOC
Based on SOC occupation classification
