Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Code review with semantic diffs, expert routing, and auto-TaskCreate. Triggers on: code review, review changes, check code, review PR, security audit.
when_to_use
Use when the user asks for a code review of staged changes, specific files, or a PR — e.g. 'review my changes', 'check this code before commit', 'security audit this diff', 'review PR 12'.
Perform comprehensive code reviews on staged changes, specific files, or pull requests. Dispatches general-purpose reviewers that preload the relevant -ops skill based on file types and automatically creates tasks for critical issues.
# Claude Code conventionscat AGENTS.md 2>/dev/null | head -50
cat CLAUDE.md 2>/dev/null | head -50
# Linting configscat .eslintrc* 2>/dev/null | head -30
cat .prettierrc* 2>/dev/null
cat pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null | head -30
# Test framework detectioncat package.json 2>/dev/null | jq '.devDependencies | keys | map(select(test("jest|vitest|mocha|cypress|playwright")))' 2>/dev/null
Check CI for existing linting:
cat .github/workflows/*.yml 2>/dev/null | grep -E "eslint|prettier|pylint|ruff" | head -10
Step 4: Route to Reviewers
Dispatch is skills-first: domain knowledge lives in -ops skills, and the generic general-purpose subagent preloads the relevant SKILL.md before reviewing.
### Step 6: Integration
**Auto-create tasks for CRITICAL issues:**
TaskCreate:
subject: "Fix: SQL injection in login.ts:42"
description: "SQL injection vulnerability found in user input handling."
activeForm: "Fixing SQL injection in login.ts:42"
**Link with dependencies for related issues:**
TaskCreate: #1 "Fix SQL injection in login.ts"
TaskCreate: #2 "Fix SQL injection in register.ts"
TaskUpdate: taskId: "2", addBlockedBy: ["1"]
**After fixing issues:**
TaskUpdate:
taskId: "1"
status: "completed"
---
## Severity System
| Level | Icon | Meaning | Action | Auto-Task? |
|-------|------|---------|--------|------------|
| CRITICAL | :red_circle: | Security bug, data loss risk, crashes | Must fix before merge | Yes |
| WARNING | :yellow_circle: | Logic issues, performance problems | Should address | No |
| SUGGESTION | :blue_circle: | Style, minor improvements | Optional | No |
| PRAISE | :star: | Good patterns worth noting | Recognition | No |
---
## Focus Modes
| Mode | What It Checks |
|------|----------------|
| `--security` | OWASP top 10, secrets in code, injection, auth issues |
| `--perf` | N+1 queries, unnecessary re-renders, complexity, memory |
| `--types` | Type safety, `any` usage, generics, null handling |
| `--tests` | Coverage gaps, test quality, mocking patterns |
| `--style` | Naming, organization, dead code, comments |
| (default) | All of the above |
---
## Depth Modes
| Mode | Behavior |
|------|----------|
| `--quick` | Surface-level scan, obvious issues only |
| `--normal` | Standard review, all severity levels (default) |
| `--thorough` | Deep analysis, traces data flow, checks edge cases |
---
## Advanced Flags
### `--base <branch>` - Baseline Comparison
Compare changes against a specific branch instead of HEAD:
```bash
/review --base main
/review src/ --base develop --thorough