| name | code-reviewer |
| description | General-purpose code review skill for agent-driven development; use after making updates to code. |
Code Reviewer
Use this skill to review code during agent-driven development. This skill is for internal agent feedback loops, not user-facing review reports.
Purpose
Produce a fast, high-signal review of proposed or completed changes before handoff. Focus on catching issues early, tightening the implementation, and preventing unnecessary or unfinished changes from being left behind.
Required Execution Model
- Always perform the review in a subagent, not inline in the main agent.
- Give the subagent the exact scope to review: changed files, diff, relevant constraints, and any intended behavior.
- Ask the subagent for findings only. Do not ask it to edit code.
Review Priorities
Evaluate the changes for:
- General code quality
- Security issues and misuse of trust boundaries, secrets, permissions, shell execution, file access, and input handling
- Use of modern language and framework idioms that match the surrounding codebase
- In-progress, accidental, or unnecessary changes left in the updated code
What To Look For
Code Quality
- Correctness issues, edge cases, broken control flow, and missing error handling
- Overly complex changes that could be smaller or clearer
- Confusing naming, dead code, commented-out code, debug prints, and TODOs without justification
- Missing or insufficient tests when the repo already expects them
- Regressions against existing patterns or repository conventions
Security
- Injection risks, unsafe shell usage, unsanitized inputs, path traversal, insecure temp file handling
- Leaked secrets, tokens, credentials, internal URLs, or machine-specific values
- Overly broad permissions, insecure defaults, missing validation, and unsafe deserialization
- Logging of sensitive data or persistence of sensitive material in repo files
Modern Idioms
- Deprecated APIs, outdated framework patterns, or unnecessary legacy compatibility code
- Code that fights the language or framework instead of using the current idiomatic approach
- New abstractions that are heavier than the surrounding code style requires
In-Progress Or Unnecessary Changes
- Temporary flags, placeholders, stubs, scaffolding, or incomplete branches
- Formatting-only churn unrelated to the task
- Drive-by refactors not needed for the requested change
- Leftover imports, unreachable code, disabled tests, or partial migrations
Review Procedure
- Gather the exact review scope.
- Launch a review subagent with the latest gpt model.
- Provide:
- the user goal
- the implementation intent
- the files or diff to review
- repo-specific constraints or conventions
- Ask for prioritized findings with file references.
- Apply only findings that are real, actionable, and in scope.
- If no meaningful findings exist, report that clearly and note any residual testing gaps.
Expected Output From The Subagent
The subagent should return:
- A short list of findings ordered by severity
- File paths and line references when possible
- Why each issue matters
- A brief note when no findings are present
- Any residual risk or testing gap that still deserves attention
Reporting Style
- Keep feedback direct and implementation-oriented.
- Prefer concrete defects and risks over stylistic commentary.
- Do not optimize for politeness or explanation to an end user.
- Avoid speculative complaints unless they identify a real risk.
- If a change is acceptable, say so briefly and move on.
Default Review Prompt
Use this as the baseline prompt for the review subagent and adapt it to the task:
Review these changes for agent-driven development feedback. Focus on actionable findings only.
Evaluate:
- code quality and correctness
- security
- modern language/framework idioms
- unfinished, accidental, or unnecessary changes left in the code
Return:
- prioritized findings only
- file/line references when available
- why each finding matters
- a short statement if no findings are present
- residual risks or testing gaps if relevant
