Code Review Playbook
This skill provides a comprehensive framework for effective code reviews that improve code quality, share knowledge, and foster collaboration. Whether you're a reviewer giving feedback or an author preparing code for review, this playbook ensures reviews are thorough, consistent, and constructive.
Overview
- Reviewing pull requests or merge requests
- Preparing code for review (self-review)
- Establishing code review standards for teams
- Training new developers on review best practices
- Resolving disagreements about code quality
- Improving review processes and efficiency
Upstream coverage (do not restate)
This skill is a thin wrapper. General review craft is documented first-party elsewhere;
only OrchestKit's own decisions live here. Load Read("${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/code-review-playbook/references/ork-delta.md")
for the house rules that survived the retired files.
| Topic | Go here instead |
|---|
| Review philosophy, speed, tone, PR sizing | https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/ |
| Conventional comment labels and decorations | references/conventional-comments.md, https://conventionalcomments.org/ |
| OWASP Top 10 review checks | rules/security-baseline.md, https://owasp.org/Top10/ |
| Generic language and framework review checklists | rules/typescript-quality.md, rules/python-quality.md, rules/linting-biome-rules.md |
| Review report shape and multi-agent full-PR review | ork:review-pr |
| Applying findings to the working tree | /code-review --fix, /simplify (see below) |
| Security-only pass over the current branch | /security-review |
| GitHub review mechanics (approve, request changes, inline comments) | https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests |
Conventional Comments
issue [blocking]: Missing error handling for API call
If the API returns a 500 error, this will crash. Add try/catch.
security [blocking]: API endpoint is not authenticated
The /api/admin/users endpoint is missing auth middleware.
Load Read("${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/code-review-playbook/references/conventional-comments.md") for the full format, labels (praise, nitpick, suggestion, issue, question, security, bug, breaking), decorations ([blocking], [non-blocking], [if-minor]), and examples.
Review Process
1. Before Reviewing
Check Context:
- Read the PR/MR description
- Understand the purpose and scope
- Review linked tickets or issues
- Check CI/CD pipeline status
Verify Automated Checks:
Set Aside Time:
- Small PR (< 200 lines): 15-30 minutes
- Medium PR (200-500 lines): 30-60 minutes
- Large PR (> 500 lines): 1-2 hours (or ask to split)
2. During Review
Follow a Pattern:
-
High-Level Review (5-10 minutes)
- Read PR description and understand intent
- Skim all changed files to get overview
- Verify approach makes sense architecturally
- Check that changes align with stated purpose
-
Detailed Review (20-45 minutes)
- Line-by-line code review
- Check logic, edge cases, error handling
- Verify tests cover new code
- Look for security vulnerabilities
- Ensure code follows team conventions
-
Testing Considerations (5-10 minutes)
- Are tests comprehensive?
- Do tests test the right things?
- Are edge cases covered?
- Is test data realistic?
-
Documentation Check (5 minutes)
- Are complex sections commented?
- Is public API documented?
- Are breaking changes noted?
- Is README updated if needed?
3. After Reviewing
Provide Clear Decision:
- ✅ Approve: Code is ready to merge
- 💬 Comment: Feedback provided, no action required
- 🔄 Request Changes: Issues must be addressed before merge
Respond to Author:
- Answer questions promptly
- Re-review after changes made
- Approve when issues resolved
- Thank author for addressing feedback
Review Checklists
General Code Quality
Security
Quick Start Guide
For Reviewers:
- Read PR description and understand intent
- Check that automated checks pass
- Do high-level review (architecture, approach)
- Do detailed review (logic, edge cases, tests)
- Use conventional comments for clear communication
- Provide decision: Approve, Comment, or Request Changes
For Authors:
- Write clear PR description
- Perform self-review before requesting review
- Ensure all automated checks pass
- Keep PR focused and reasonably sized (< 400 lines)
- Respond to feedback promptly and respectfully
- Make requested changes or explain reasoning
CC Built-in Review Commands (2.1.152+)
This playbook is the manual framework; Claude Code ships built-in commands that automate parts of it:
/code-review — reviews the current diff for correctness bugs and reuse/simplification/efficiency cleanups./code-review --fix (CC 2.1.152+) — runs the review then applies the findings to your working tree (a bug-hunting review covering correctness plus reuse/simplification/efficiency)./code-review --comment — posts findings as inline PR comments./simplify — CC 2.1.154 changed this: it now runs a cleanup-only review (reuse, simplification, efficiency, altitude) and applies the fixes — it no longer invokes the full /code-review --fix bug-hunt. Reach for /simplify for tidy-ups, /code-review --fix for bug-finding-plus-fix.
Use the built-ins for fast diff-scoped passes; use ork:review-pr for the multi-agent, full-PR review (security + testing + architecture).
Skill Version: 2.0.0
Last Updated: 2026-01-08
Maintained by: OrchestKit
Related Skills
ork:architecture-patterns - Enforce testing and architectural best practices during code reviework:security-patterns - Auth, input validation, and OWASP patterns to complement manual reviework:testing-unit - Unit testing patterns to verify during review
Rules
Each category has individual rule files in rules/ loaded on-demand:
| Category | Rule | Impact | Key Pattern |
|---|
| TypeScript Quality | rules/typescript-quality.md | HIGH | No any, Zod validation, exhaustive switches, React 19 |
| Python Quality | rules/python-quality.md | HIGH | Pydantic v2, ruff, mypy strict, async timeouts |
| Security Baseline | rules/security-baseline.md | CRITICAL | No secrets, auth on endpoints, input validation |
| Linting | rules/linting-biome-setup.md | HIGH | Biome setup, ESLint migration, gradual adoption |
| Linting | rules/linting-biome-rules.md | HIGH | Biome config, type-aware rules, CI integration |
Total: 5 rules across 4 categories
Available Scripts
There is deliberately no review-report template here; ork:review-pr owns that output
shape. See references/ork-delta.md.
