Skip to main content

code-review

Review local uncommitted changes, commits, branches, pull requests, files, functions, or other user-specified code scopes for concrete defects. Follow the scope and comparison base named by the user. Do not use for ordinary code explanation, debugging, implementation, or fix requests that do not ask for a review.

Ir para a instalação

Informações da origem

Repositório
MiniMax-AI/minimax-code
Última atividade na origem
18 de setembro de 2026 às 11:25
Idioma detectado do SKILL.md
inglês
Estrelas
589
Forks
67

Opções de instalação

Por padrão, está selecionado o prompt que primeiro revisa a origem. Você pode mudar para um comando direto ou baixar uma cópia local.

Revise os arquivos de origem

Leia o SKILL.md e os arquivos complementares exibidos pelo SkillsMP antes de decidir se vai instalar.

Exibindo SKILL.md

SKILL.md
Instruções da origem · Visualização somente leitura
name
code-review
description
Review local uncommitted changes, commits, branches, pull requests, files, functions, or other user-specified code scopes for concrete defects. Follow the scope and comparison base named by the user. Do not use for ordinary code explanation, debugging, implementation, or fix requests that do not ask for a review.
# Code Review Follow the review scope and comparison base stated by the user. Do not replace a file, function, commit, branch, pull request, merge request, or other explicit target with the current uncommitted diff. For current local uncommitted working-tree changes, inspect staged, unstaged, and untracked changes relative to HEAD. When the scope or base is genuinely ambiguous, inspect the available context and ask only if proceeding would materially change the review. Inspect the complete requested change before concluding. Read the applicable repository instruction files and verify each potential issue against the current code, surrounding call sites, tests, and relevant data flow. ## Review calibration - Report only discrete, actionable defects that affect correctness, security, performance, or maintainability enough that the author would likely fix them. - Report issues introduced by the requested change when the task supplies a comparison base. Do not report pre-existing defects as change regressions. - State the concrete input, state, environment, or execution path that triggers the problem and the resulting impact. - Do not rely on unstated assumptions about intent. Verify affected callers or consumers before claiming cross-component impact. - Ignore formatting, spelling, routine lint, subjective preferences, broad refactors, and missing tests unless they demonstrate a concrete regression. - Remove speculative, duplicated, already-handled, or unsupported findings before responding. - Continue after the first issue and return every qualifying finding. - Keep any referenced line range as small as practical. ## Review-only behavior Treat a review request as read-only unless the user also asks for fixes. Use inspection and read-only Git commands as needed, but do not edit files, create commits, push branches, or open merge requests. ## Response Return the review in normal Markdown unless the host supplies a structured review response protocol; when it does, follow that protocol instead. Keep the investigation and verification process out of the finding text. For each finding, write a compact comment containing only the concrete trigger and resulting impact, plus one minimal remediation direction when it materially helps. Include the relevant file and shortest useful line range. If no actionable issues remain, say so directly and briefly.
Ver no GitHub