Review code for quality, security, and project pattern compliance, then auto-fix Critical/High issues. Use after implementing a phase, completing a feature, or modifying existing code ('review this code', 'check my implementation', 'audit this PR', 'review phase 5'). Checks TypeScript strictness, RLS policies, Server Action auth patterns, and component library compliance. Grounds every finding in actual codebase reference files. Do NOT use for creating plans (use create-plan), implementing features (use implement), or writing tests (use implement with TDD).
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 for quality, security, and project pattern compliance, then auto-fix Critical/High issues. Use after implementing a phase, completing a feature, or modifying existing code ('review this code', 'check my implementation', 'audit this PR', 'review phase 5'). Checks TypeScript strictness, RLS policies, Server Action auth patterns, and component library compliance. Grounds every finding in actual codebase reference files. Do NOT use for creating plans (use create-plan), implementing features (use implement), or writing tests (use implement with TDD).
The user depends on this review to catch issues before they reach production. Self-review misses problems because the implementer has blind spots about their own code.
What skipping or rushing this review costs the user:
Missed Check
Consequence
Step verification
Features incomplete, user discovers gaps in production
Security issues (RLS, credentials)
Data leakage between accounts, security incidents
Project pattern compliance
Inconsistent codebase, harder to maintain
Codebase pattern deviation
Code works differently from every other feature, confusing to maintain
Persistent review record
No audit trail, same mistakes repeated across future phases
This review creates accountability. Specific file:line references and concrete fixes give the user actionable feedback — not vague "looks good" responses that hide problems.
Codebase-Grounded Review
This review is grounded in the actual codebase, not just a static checklist. Before flagging pattern violations, you read a reference implementation to confirm what the correct pattern looks like. This prevents:
Flagging things that are actually correct in this codebase
Missing violations because the checklist is stale
Giving generic advice instead of specific "line X should match how it's done in file Y"
Output Location
Code/implementation reviews go in the reviews/code/ subfolder:
Create the reviews/code/ directory if it doesn't exist.
Note: Planning/template reviews go in reviews/planning/ instead — see /review-plan skill.
Delegation & Batching
For instructions on spawning multiple code review agents in batches, see delegation.md.
Task Tracking
Tasks survive context compacts — skipping this check causes lost progress and repeated work.
Before starting work, run TaskList to check if tasks already exist from a previous session or before a compact. If tasks exist:
Read existing tasks with TaskGet for each task ID
Find the first task with status pending or in_progress
Resume from that task — do NOT recreate the task list
If no tasks exist, create them after Step 2 (identifying files to review):
Example task list:
Task 1: Read phase document and extract requirements
Task 2: Identify files to review
Task 3: Find reference implementations
Task 4: Run completeness check
Task 5: Run code quality & codebase compliance check
Task 6: Write review file using template
Task 7: Auto-fix Critical and High issues
Task 8: Return summary with next steps
Mark each task in_progress when starting and completed when done.
Workflow
Step 1: Read the Phase Document
Read the phase file at the path provided in the arguments above. Extract:
All Implementation Steps (Step 0 through Step N)
All Verifiable Acceptance Criteria
All Functional and Technical Requirements
Step 2: Identify Files to Review
The user should have provided a file list when invoking. If not, ask which files were modified in this phase. You cannot use git commands.
Step 3: Find Reference Implementations
Before reviewing code quality, read at least one reference file from the codebase. This grounds your review in actual patterns, not memory. Without this step, you risk flagging correct code as violations or missing actual deviations.
Classify the files under review and find a reference for each type:
File Type
How to Find Reference
Server actions
Glob: app/home/[account]/**/*server-actions*.ts — read one
Service files
Glob: app/home/[account]/**/*service*.ts — read one
Zod schemas
Glob: app/home/[account]/**/*.schema.ts — read one
SQL migrations
Glob: supabase/migrations/*.sql — read a recent one
React components
Glob: app/home/[account]/**/_components/*.tsx — read one
Page files
Glob: app/home/[account]/**/page.tsx — read one
Test files
Glob: __tests__/**/*.test.ts — read one
Read the reference file. This is your ground truth for:
Function signatures (e.g., Server Action auth pattern)
Import paths and sources
Naming conventions
File organization
Error handling patterns
Complete this step before Step 5. Flagging pattern violations without first confirming the correct pattern from a real file leads to false positives that waste the user's time.
Step 4: Completeness Check
Verify every section in the phase document was implemented. See checklist.md for detailed criteria.
Step 5: Code Quality & Codebase Compliance Check
Review the files against project patterns, security requirements, AND the reference implementations from Step 3. See checklist.md for detailed criteria.
For each file under review:
Compare its patterns against the reference from Step 3
Check against the codebase compliance checklist in checklist.md
Flag deviations with severity and specific file:line references
When flagging an issue, cite the reference: "Line 42 uses async (data) => but reference file claude-ai-server-actions.ts:65 shows async (data, user) => is required when auth: true."
For React/Next.js Code: Load Performance Guidelines
If reviewing React components, Next.js pages, or frontend code, invoke:
/vercel-react-best-practices
This loads 57 performance rules. Check the code against CRITICAL and HIGH priority rules:
CRITICAL - Eliminating Waterfalls:
No sequential awaits for independent operations (use Promise.all)
Suspense boundaries for streaming content
Early promise initiation in API routes
CRITICAL - Bundle Optimization:
No barrel file imports (import directly from source)
Heavy components use next/dynamic
Third-party scripts deferred after hydration
HIGH - Server-Side Performance:
React.cache() for per-request deduplication
Minimal data serialization to client components
Parallel data fetching in server components
MEDIUM - Re-render Optimization:
Derived state computed during render, not useEffect
Memoization for expensive computations
useTransition for non-urgent updates
Flag violations in the appropriate priority section of the review.
Step 6: Read Output Template and Write Review File
Read the output template BEFORE writing the review.
Reviews written without reading the template first produce inconsistent formats that the user cannot compare across phases. Read references/CODE-REVIEW-TEMPLATE.md and follow the exact format specified.
The template defines the exact sections, table columns, and verdict format. Inventing custom formats, adding extra sections like "Positive Observations" or "Technical Excellence", or using emoji checkmarks breaks the user's ability to track review status consistently across phases.
Write to:{plan-folder}/reviews/code/phase-{NN}.md
Step 6b: Validate Review Format
After writing the review file, run the validation script to catch structural issues:
If validation fails, fix the reported issues in the review file before proceeding. The script checks for missing sections, incorrect table formats, and forbidden patterns (like "Positive Observations" sections that aren't in the template).
Step 7: Auto-Fix Critical and High Issues
If no Critical/High issues were found, skip to Step 8.
Default: FIX IT. Most review issues are straightforward pattern corrections. Auto-fix is the expected outcome, not the exception. A review that identifies problems but fixes nothing is only half the job.
Fix Critical and High issues directly in the source files:
For each Critical/High issue:
a. Read the source file at the file:line cited in the review
b. Read the reference file that shows the correct pattern
c. Apply the fix using Edit (for targeted changes) or Write (for new files)
Examples of fixes to make (never defer these):
Wrong function signatures — fix to match the reference
Missing 'use client' or 'use server' directives
Wrong import paths or import ordering
Missing error handling where the reference shows a clear pattern
Missing server-only imports in server-side files
Wrong TypeScript types (e.g., any where a proper type exists)
Naming/convention violations where the reference shows the correct pattern
The ONLY reasons to defer to the main agent (use sparingly):
The fix would change the feature's business logic or user-facing behavior
The fix contradicts the phase's Decision Log or architectural approach
You genuinely cannot determine the correct fix even after reading references
After fixing, re-read the file to verify the fix is correct and doesn't introduce new issues.
Update the review file:
Append "(Auto-fixed)" to fixed items in the Issues tables
Fill in the "Fixes Applied" section (see template)
Update the Verdict to reflect only remaining unfixed issues
Step 8: Return Summary with Next Steps
After writing the review file, return:
Review file location
Verdict (Ready/Not Ready) — based on remaining unfixed issues only
Count of issues (total, auto-fixed, deferred)
Reference files used
Auto-fixed (count and brief list of what was fixed)
Deferred to main agent (issues not auto-fixed and why)
Next Steps for Medium/Low — present as improvement opportunities
Improvement mindset: When listing Medium/Low issues, frame them as concrete improvements worth doing now — not optional niceties. Phases are rarely revisited after completion, so "fix later" effectively means "never." The user prefers investing in quality now over speed.
Action directive for main agent: If there are deferred items or Medium/Low suggestions, end your summary with:
ACTION REQUIRED: [N] deferred items and [M] improvement suggestions need main agent attention.
Please review the items above and fix or discuss with the user before proceeding.
Cause: The review skipped Step 3 (reading reference implementations) and flagged code based on assumptions rather than actual codebase patterns.
Fix: Always read at least one reference file of each type before flagging issues. If the codebase uses a pattern that differs from generic best practices, the codebase wins.
Review is superficial ("looks good, no issues found")
Cause: The reviewer didn't read individual files at specific line numbers, relying on a surface-level scan instead of deep inspection.
Fix: For each file under review, read the full file and compare line-by-line against both the phase requirements and the reference implementation. Check every import path, function signature, and error handling pattern.
Auto-fix introduces new issues
Cause: The fix was applied without re-reading the file to verify correctness, or the fix didn't account for surrounding context.
Fix: After every Edit, re-read the modified file to verify the fix is correct. Check that imports still resolve and that the change doesn't break adjacent code.
Review format is inconsistent across phases
Cause: The reviewer didn't read references/CODE-REVIEW-TEMPLATE.md before writing (Step 6). Custom formats break the user's ability to track review status.
Fix: Always read the template first and follow its exact structure. Do not add custom sections or change the table format.
Resuming After Context Compact
If you notice context was compacted or you're unsure of current progress:
Run TaskList to see all tasks and their status
Find the in_progress task — that's where you were
Run TaskGet {id} on that task to read full details
Continue from that task — don't restart from the beginning
Tasks persist across compacts. The task list is your source of truth for progress, not your memory.
Pattern for every work session:
TaskList → find in_progress or first pending → TaskGet → continue work → TaskUpdate (completed) → next task
Constraints
Write review files within the plan folder
When auto-fixing, you may also edit source files cited in the review
Read the phase file FIRST before reviewing code
Read at least one reference implementation before flagging pattern violations
Cite references when flagging codebase pattern issues (e.g., "reference: claude-ai-server-actions.ts:65")
Be specific with file paths and line numbers
Critical and High issues block phase completion (unless auto-fixed)
Auto-fix: Default is to fix. Only defer for genuine business logic changes or ADR contradictions
Auto-fix: "Needs verification" is not a valid excuse — use Glob/Grep/Read to verify, then fix
The user configured this review to be thorough because vague feedback ("looks good", "some issues") doesn't help fix problems. Specific file:line references, comparison to known-good reference code, and concrete fixes are what the user needs to take action.
