Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Review code quality with evidence-based rigor. Supports input modes: pending changes, PR number, commit hash, and codebase scan. Focuses on bugs, regressions, maintainability, reliability, and verification gaps.
user-invocable
true
when_to_use
Invoke to review diffs, PRs, commits, or full codebases.
category
utilities
keywords
["review","quality","verification","reliability"]
argument-hint
[#PR | COMMIT | --pending | codebase [parallel]]
metadata
{"author":"agentkit","version":"2.0.0"}
Code Review
Production-readiness code review with technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses. Reviews focus on production risks, regression paths, and whether the implementation matches the requested change.
Input Modes
Auto-detect from arguments. If ambiguous or no arguments, prompt via ask_user capability.
If invoked WITHOUT arguments and no recent changes in context, use ask_user capability with header "Review Target", question "What would you like to review?":
Option
Description
Pending changes
Review staged/unstaged git diff
Enter PR number
Fetch and review a specific PR
Enter commit hash
Review a specific commit
Full codebase scan
Deep codebase analysis
Parallel codebase audit
Multi-reviewer codebase scan
Core Principle
YAGNI, KISS, DRY always. Technical correctness over social comfort.
Be honest, be brutal, straight to the point, and be concise.
Default assumption: reviewed code may be AI-assisted. Do not trust polished shape, confident comments, or happy-path tests. Verify behavior, project-rule compliance, and scope discipline from evidence.
No rubber-stamp reviews. The reviewer is not trying to please the author or preserve momentum; the reviewer enforces the rulebook and blocks defects, regressions, hidden scope drift, and AI-slop patterns.
Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.
Practices
Practice
When
Reference
Spec compliance
After implementing from plan/spec, BEFORE quality review
Fix Critical immediately, Important before proceeding
Full protocol:references/requesting-code-review.md
Edge Case Scouting
When: After implementation, before requesting code-reviewer
Process:
Invoke /ak:scout with edge-case-focused prompt
Scout analyzes: affected files, data flows, error paths, boundary conditions
Review scout findings for potential issues
Address critical gaps before code review
Full protocol:references/edge-case-scouting.md
Task-Managed Review Pipeline
When: Multi-file features (3+ changed files), parallel code-reviewer scopes, review cycles with Critical fix iterations.
Fallback: Task tools (manage_plan capability/manage_plan capability/manage_plan capability/manage_plan capability) are CLI-only — unavailable in VSCode extension. If they error, use manage_plan capability for tracking and run pipeline sequentially. Review quality is identical.
Pipeline: scout → review → fix → verify (each a Task with dependency chain)
PR Review:the installed code-review skill #123 → fetch diff → full review pipeline on PR changes
Commit Review:the installed code-review skill abc1234 → review specific commit with full pipeline
Codebase Analysis Subcommands
Subcommand
Reference
Purpose
the installed code-review skill codebase
references/codebase-scan-workflow.md
Scan & analyze the codebase
the installed code-review skill codebase parallel
references/parallel-review-workflow.md
Ultrathink edge cases, then parallel verify
Bottom Line
Resolve input mode first — know WHAT you're reviewing
Technical rigor over social performance
Scout edge cases before review
Evidence before claims
Verify. Scout. Question. Then implement. Evidence. Then claim.
Workflow Position
Typically follows:/ak:cook (review after implementation), /ak:fix (review after bug fix)
Typically precedes:the engineer ship skill (ship after review passes)
Related:/ak:scout (scout before reviewing), the installed test skill (test before reviewing)