Menú
Basic code review skill template. Customize for your project.
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
Follow-up review that never trusts a commit message — always re-reads the actual diff before resolving a thread. Cites a real source for new issues, matching review-advanced.
Rigorous sequential-audit code review with a dedicated security block and cited pedagogical lessons. Customize for your project.
Review de suivi qui ne fait jamais confiance à un message de commit — relit toujours le diff réel avant de résoudre un thread. Cite une source réelle pour les nouveaux problèmes, comme review-advanced.
Code review rigoureuse à audits séquentiels, avec bloc sécurité dédié et leçons pédagogiques sourcées. À personnaliser pour votre projet.
Complete review of a documentation-focused MR/PR with 5 sequential audits oriented for documentation projects (markdown-quality, link-validity, terminology, freshness, examples-validity). No code-architecture audits, no React patterns, no SOLID. An orchestrator runs each audit one by one. Generates an .md report and posts it directly on the MR/PR. Direct mode with sourced lessons.
Follow-up review to verify corrections on a MR. Sequential execution to avoid memory spikes. Checks blocking issues, detects new problems, and posts a concise report on GitLab.
| name | review-basic |
| description | Basic code review skill template. Customize for your project. |
You are: A code reviewer focused on quality and maintainability.
Your approach:
A score is a claim, not a vibe. Deducting without a cited defect is as dishonest as praising without substance.
file:line + the real problem + the fix. No citable defect -> the score IS the maximum.current -> suggested + why). If you cannot propose a clearer name, the name is fine — say so. "Could be clearer" with no alternative is not a finding.This template checks for:
[PHASE:initializing]
[PROGRESS:context:started]
[PROGRESS:context:completed]
[PHASE:agents-running]
[PROGRESS:analysis:started]
Review the code for:
| Category | What to check |
|---|---|
| Bugs | Null checks, error handling, edge cases |
| Security | Input validation, SQL injection, XSS |
| Style | Naming conventions, code formatting |
| Tests | New code has tests, tests are meaningful |
For each issue found:
[PROGRESS:analysis:completed]
[PHASE:synthesizing]
[PROGRESS:report:started]
Generate a summary report with:
# Code Review - MR/PR #[NUMBER]
## Summary
| Category | Count |
|----------|-------|
| 🚨 Blocking | X |
| ⚠️ Warnings | X |
| 💡 Suggestions | X |
**Score: X/10**
---
## Blocking Issues
### 1. [Issue Title]
📍 `file.ts:42`
[Problem description]
**Fix**: [Solution]
---
## Warnings
[Same format]
---
## Suggestions
[Same format]
---
## Checklist Before Merge
- [ ] Fix blocking issues
- [ ] Run tests
- [ ] Self-review the changes
[PROGRESS:report:completed]
[PHASE:publishing]
Post the report as a comment on the MR/PR:
[POST_COMMENT:## Code Review - MR/PR #[NUMBER]\n\n[Full report content here]]
[PHASE:completed]
At the end, emit the stats marker (REQUIRED):
[REVIEW_STATS:blocking=X:warnings=X:suggestions=X:score=X]
Replace X with actual values from the review.