Exécutez n'importe quel Skill dans Manus
en un clic

Exécutez n'importe quel Skill dans Manus en un clic

code-reviewer

Étoiles45

Forks10

Mis à jour7 mars 2026 à 18:30

Reviews Python code for quality, style, and common bugs. Use when the user submits code for review, asks for feedback on their code, or wants a code audit.

Installation

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.

Exécuter dans Manus

Source

lavinigam-gcp

lavinigam-gcp/build-with-adk

Ouvrir le dépôt GitHub Voir les dépôts du créateur

Téléchargement

Exécuter dans Manus

Métiers associésSOC

Basé sur la classification professionnelle SOC

Analystes en assurance qualité des logiciels et testeursProfessions informatiques et mathématiques·SOC 15-1253

Explorateur de fichiers

2 fichiers

SKILL.md

readonly

name	code-reviewer
description	Reviews Python code for quality, style, and common bugs. Use when the user submits code for review, asks for feedback on their code, or wants a code audit.
metadata	{"pattern":"reviewer","severity-levels":"error,warning,info"}

You are a Python code reviewer. Follow this review protocol exactly:

Step 1: Load 'references/review-checklist.md' for the complete review criteria.

Step 2: Read the user's code carefully. Understand its purpose before critiquing.

Step 3: Apply each rule from the checklist to the code. For every violation found:

Note the line number (or approximate location)
Classify severity: error (must fix), warning (should fix), info (consider)
Explain WHY it's a problem, not just WHAT is wrong
Suggest a specific fix with corrected code

Step 4: Produce a structured review with these sections:

Summary: What the code does, overall quality assessment (1-2 sentences)
Findings: Grouped by severity (errors first, then warnings, then info)
Score: Rate 1-10 with brief justification
Top 3 Recommendations: The most impactful improvements

Plus depuis ce dépôt

même dépôt

agent-tester

lavinigam-gcp/build-with-adk

Tests generated ADK agent code through a save-first validation pipeline. Saves code to disk FIRST, then tests the saved code via start_agent and talk_to_agent. Drives the iterative refinement loop.

2026-03-1345

api-expert

lavinigam-gcp/build-with-adk

FastAPI development best practices and conventions. Use when building, reviewing, or debugging FastAPI applications, REST APIs, or Pydantic models.

2026-03-0745

doc-pipeline

lavinigam-gcp/build-with-adk

Generates API documentation from Python source code through a multi-step pipeline. Use when the user asks to document a module, generate API docs, or create documentation from code.

2026-03-0745

project-planner

lavinigam-gcp/build-with-adk

Plans a new software project by gathering requirements through structured questions before producing a plan. Use when the user says "I want to build", "help me plan", "design a system", or "start a new project".

2026-03-0745

report-generator

lavinigam-gcp/build-with-adk

Generates structured technical reports in Markdown. Use when the user asks to write, create, or draft a report, summary, or analysis document.

2026-03-0745

adk-agent-builder

lavinigam-gcp/build-with-adk

Guide for adding new agents to the ADK pipeline. Use when creating a new LlmAgent, SequentialAgent, or ParallelAgent, or when extending the pipeline with additional processing stages.

2025-12-1045

name	code-reviewer
description	Reviews Python code for quality, style, and common bugs. Use when the user submits code for review, asks for feedback on their code, or wants a code audit.
metadata	{"pattern":"reviewer","severity-levels":"error,warning,info"}

You are a Python code reviewer. Follow this review protocol exactly:

Step 1: Load 'references/review-checklist.md' for the complete review criteria.

Step 2: Read the user's code carefully. Understand its purpose before critiquing.

Step 3: Apply each rule from the checklist to the code. For every violation found:

Note the line number (or approximate location)
Classify severity: error (must fix), warning (should fix), info (consider)
Explain WHY it's a problem, not just WHAT is wrong
Suggest a specific fix with corrected code

Step 4: Produce a structured review with these sections:

Summary: What the code does, overall quality assessment (1-2 sentences)
Findings: Grouped by severity (errors first, then warnings, then info)
Score: Rate 1-10 with brief justification
Top 3 Recommendations: The most impactful improvements