菜单
Use when reviewing code changes before committing, after implementing features, or when asked to review. Triggers on staged changes, PR reviews, or explicit review requests.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/ForceInjection/domain-driven-design-skills --skill code-review命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Conduct deep academic research for philosophy, neuroscience, cognitive science, and theoretical computer science (computability, complexity, AI theory, logic). Use when user asks to: research academic topics, find scholarly papers, conduct literature reviews, analyze citations, synthesize research findings, explore philosophical arguments, investigate consciousness/cognition, study computability/decidability/Turing machines, or analyze academic debates. Triggers on: 'research papers', 'literature review', 'academic sources', 'scholarly articles', 'philosophy of mind', 'computability theory', 'neuroscience studies', 'find papers on', 'what does the research say'.
Create clear action plans with steps, success criteria, and risk awareness. Use before implementing features, making changes, starting projects, or anytime you need a roadmap to success. Triggers on "plan this", "how should we approach", "what's the strategy", "steps to complete", or when facing complex multi-step work.
Add keyboard navigation to a feature using CommandRegistryService. Use when implementing keyboard shortcuts, vim-style navigation, or hotkeys for a page or component.
正在显示 SKILL.md
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | code-review |
| description | Use when reviewing code changes before committing, after implementing features, or when asked to review. Triggers on staged changes, PR reviews, or explicit review requests. |
Rigorous code review focused on quality, maintainability, and architectural soundness.
Start by inspecting the changes. Use the deterministic script to collect the review context:
scripts/collect_review_context.sh
If on the main branch, review the staged git diff. If on a different branch, review committed and uncommitted changes compared to main.
Dispatch two subagents to carefully review the code changes. Tell them they're competing with another agent - whoever finds more legitimate issues wins honour and glory. Make sure they examine both architecture AND implementation, and check every criterion below.
| Check | Look For |
|---|---|
| DRY | Duplicated logic, copy-pasted code, repeated patterns that should be abstracted |
| Code Bloat | Unnecessary code, over-engineering, premature abstractions, dead code |
| Bugs | Logic errors, edge cases, off-by-one errors, null/undefined handling |
| Symptom | Description |
|---|---|
| Magic values |
| Hardcoded strings/numbers without constants |
| Inconsistent naming | Mixed conventions, unclear names |
| Missing error handling | Unhandled exceptions, silent failures |
| TODO/FIXME comments | Deferred work that should be tracked |
| Commented-out code | Delete it or explain why it exists |
| Dependency bloat | New deps when stdlib/existing deps suffice |
| Principle | Review Questions |
|---|---|
| Modularity | Are changes properly bounded? Do they respect module boundaries? |
| Cohesion | Does each unit have a single, clear responsibility? |
| Separation of Concerns | Is business logic mixed with presentation/data access? |
| Information Hiding | Are implementation details properly encapsulated? |
| Coupling | Does this create tight coupling? Are dependencies appropriate? |
Challenge the implementation:
| Check | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Coverage | Are the important paths tested? |
| Meaningful assertions | Do tests verify behavior, not implementation? |
| Edge cases | Are boundaries and error conditions tested? |
| Readability | Can you understand what's tested from test names? |
| Fragility | Will tests break on valid refactors? |
Report findings organized by severity:
## Code Review Findings
### Critical (must fix)
- [Issue]: [Location] - [Why it matters]
### Important (should fix)
- [Issue]: [Location] - [Recommendation]
### Minor (consider fixing)
- [Issue]: [Location] - [Suggestion]
### Positive Observations
- [What was done well]
| Mistake | Correction |
|---|---|
| Surface-level review | Dig into logic, trace data flow |
| Ignoring context | Review changes in relation to the system |
| Only finding negatives | Note what's done well |
| Vague feedback | Be specific: file, line, concrete suggestion |
| Bikeshedding | Focus on impact, not style preferences |