Menu
Le prompt qui vérifie d'abord la source est sélectionné par défaut. Vous pouvez passer à une commande directe ou télécharger une copie locale.
Lisez SKILL.md et les fichiers associés affichés par SkillsMP avant de décider de l'installer.
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.
npx skills add https://github.com/lza6/Claude-code-cli-config --skill code-review-qualityLa commande reste sur une seule ligne. Faites défiler horizontalement pour la vérifier avant de la copier.
Vous préférez une copie locale ? Téléchargez les fichiers actuellement disponibles dans SkillsMP.
Basé sur la classification professionnelle SOC
Affichage de SKILL.md
| name | code-review-quality |
| description | 代码质量审查 - 进行上下文驱动的代码审查，专注于质量、可测试性和可维护性。适用于审查代码、提供反馈或建立审查实践。 |
| category | 开发实践 |
| priority | 高 |
| tokenEstimate | 900 |
| agents | ["qe-质量分析器","qe-安全扫描器","qe-性能测试器","qe-覆盖率分析器"] |
| implementation_status | 已优化 |
| optimization_version | 1 |
| last_optimized | 2025-12-02T00:00:00.000Z |
| dependencies | [] |
| quick_reference_card | true |
| tags | ["code-review","feedback","quality","testability","maintainability","pr-review"] |
| trust_tier | 2 |
| validation | {"schema_path":"schemas/output.json","validator_path":"scripts/validate-config.json"} |
<default_to_action> When reviewing code or establishing review practices:
Quick Review Checklist:
Critical Success Factors:
| Level | Icon | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blocker | 🔴 | Bug/security/crash | Must fix before merge |
| Major | 🟡 | Logic issue/test gap | Should fix before merge |
| Minor | 🟢 | Style/naming | Nice to fix |
| Suggestion | 💡 | Alternative approach | Consider for future |
| Lines Changed | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| < 200 | Single review session |
| 200-400 | Review in chunks |
| > 400 | Request PR split |
| ✅ Review | ❌ Skip |
|---|---|
| Logic correctness |
| Formatting (use linter) |
| Security risks | Naming preferences |
| Test coverage | Architecture debates |
| Performance issues | Style opinions |
| Error handling | Trivial changes |
🔴 **BLOCKER: SQL Injection Risk**
This query is vulnerable to SQL injection:
```javascript
db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`)
Fix: Use parameterized queries:
db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?', [userId])
Why: User input directly in SQL allows attackers to execute arbitrary queries.
### Major (Should Fix)
```markdown
🟡 **MAJOR: Missing Error Handling**
What happens if `fetchUser()` throws? The error bubbles up unhandled.
**Suggestion:** Add try/catch with appropriate error response:
```javascript
try {
const user = await fetchUser(id);
return user;
} catch (error) {
logger.error('Failed to fetch user', { id, error });
throw new NotFoundError('User not found');
}
### Minor (Nice to Fix)
```markdown
🟢 **minor:** Variable name could be clearer
`d` doesn't convey meaning. Consider `daysSinceLastLogin`.
💡 **suggestion:** Consider extracting this to a helper
This validation logic appears in 3 places. A `validateEmail()` helper would reduce duplication. Not blocking, but might be worth a follow-up PR.
Reviews must meet a minimum weighted finding score of 3.0 (CRITICAL=3, HIGH=2, MEDIUM=1, LOW=0.5, INFORMATIONAL=0.25). If the initial review falls short, run the qe-devils-advocate agent as a meta-reviewer to find additional observations. Every review should have at least 3 actionable observations.
// Comprehensive code review
await Task("Code Review", {
prNumber: 123,
checks: ['security', 'performance', 'testability', 'maintainability'],
feedbackLevels: ['blocker', 'major', 'minor'],
autoApprove: { maxBlockers: 0, maxMajor: 2 }
}, "qe-quality-analyzer");
// Security-focused review
await Task("Security Review", {
prFiles: changedFiles,
scanTypes: ['injection', 'auth', 'secrets', 'dependencies']
}, "qe-security-scanner");
// Test coverage review
await Task("Coverage Review", {
prNumber: 123,
requireNewTests: true,
minCoverageDelta: 0
}, "qe-coverage-analyzer");
aqe/code-review/
├── review-history/* - Past review decisions
├── patterns/* - Common issues by team/repo
├── feedback-templates/* - Reusable feedback
└── metrics/* - Review turnaround time
const reviewFleet = await FleetManager.coordinate({
strategy: 'code-review',
agents: [
'qe-quality-analyzer', // Logic, maintainability
'qe-security-scanner', // Security risks
'qe-performance-tester', // Performance issues
'qe-coverage-analyzer' // Test coverage
],
topology: 'parallel'
});
| ✅ Do | ❌ Don't |
|---|---|
| "Have you considered...?" | "This is wrong" |
| Explain why it matters | Just say "fix this" |
| Acknowledge good code | Only point out negatives |
| Suggest, don't demand | Be condescending |
| Review < 400 lines | Review 2000 lines at once |
Prioritize feedback: 🔴 Blocker → 🟡 Major → 🟢 Minor → 💡 Suggestion. Focus on bugs and security, not style. Ask questions, don't command. Review < 400 lines at a time. Fast feedback (< 24h) beats thorough feedback.
With Agents: Agents automate security, performance, and coverage checks, freeing human reviewers to focus on logic and design. Use agents for consistent, fast initial review.
/security-testing for security-focused review/qe-coverage-analysis on changed files/qe-quality-assessment