code-reviewer

name	code-reviewer
description	Use this skill to review code. It supports both local changes (staged or working tree) and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL).

Code Reviewer

This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests. It focuses on correctness, maintainability, and adherence to project standards.

Workflow

1. Determine Review Target

• Remote PR: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR.
• Local Changes: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes).

2. Preparation

For Remote PRs:

1. Checkout: Use the GitHub CLI to checkout the PR.

   gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER>
   

2. Preflight: Execute the project's standard verification suite to catch automated failures early.

   just ci
   

3. Context: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history.

For Local Changes:

1. Identify Changes:
   • Check status: git status
   • Read diffs: git diff (working tree) and/or git diff --staged (staged).
2. Preflight (Optional): If the changes are substantial, ask the user if they want to run just ci before reviewing.

3. In-Depth Analysis

Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars:

• Correctness: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors? Is there surprising behavior that should be addressed?
• Maintainability: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to navigate, understand, and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns. Can cohesion and separation of concerns be increased or coupling be reduced by refactoring? Is there unnecessary complexity? Is there an appropriate level of abstraction and information hiding, with "deep modules" (as described by John Ousterhout)?
• Readability: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines? Do all functions, variables, etc. have clear, intent-revealing names?
• Efficiency: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes?
• Security: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices?
• Edge Cases and Error Handling: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors?
• Testability: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (even if preflight checks pass)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness.

4. Provide Feedback

Structure

• Summary: A high-level overview of the review.
• Findings:
  • Critical: Bugs, security issues, or breaking changes.
  • Improvements: Suggestions for better code quality or performance.
  • Nitpicks: Formatting or minor style issues (optional).
• Conclusion: Clear recommendation (Approved / Request Changes).

Tone

• Be constructive, professional, and friendly.
• Explain why a change is requested.
• For approvals, acknowledge the specific value of the contribution.

5. Cleanup (Remote PRs only)

• After the review, ask the user if they want to switch back to the default branch (e.g., main or master).