一键导入
laravel-code-review-requests
Request effective code reviews—specify focus areas, provide context, ask for architectural feedback, reference Laravel conventions
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。
菜单
Request effective code reviews—specify focus areas, provide context, ask for architectural feedback, reference Laravel conventions
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。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Build AI features with the first-party Laravel AI SDK (Laravel 13+); agents, embeddings, images, audio, and tool calling with provider-agnostic APIs
Use API Resources with pagination and conditional fields; keep response shapes stable and cache-friendly
Compose UIs with Blade components, slots, and layouts; keep templates pure and testable
Practical daily checklist for Laravel projects; bring services up, run migrations, queues, quality gates, and tests
Create effective debugging prompts—include error messages, stack traces, expected vs actual behavior, logs, and attempted solutions
Provide comprehensive context in prompts—files, errors, Laravel version, dependencies, and monorepo details—for accurate AI responses
| name | laravel:code-review-requests |
| description | Request effective code reviews—specify focus areas, provide context, ask for architectural feedback, reference Laravel conventions |
Focused review requests get actionable feedback. Vague requests get generic advice.
"Review this code"
"Review OrderService for security and performance:
Focus on:
Code:
class OrderService
{
public function createOrder(User $user, array $items): Order
{
$order = Order::create(['user_id' => $user->id]);
foreach ($items as $item) {
OrderItem::create([
'order_id' => $order->id,
'product_id' => $item['product_id'],
'quantity' => $item['quantity'],
]);
}
return $order;
}
}
```"
**Why it works:** Clear focus areas guide the review toward specific concerns.
## Provide Context
### Insufficient Context
"Is this controller okay?"
### Sufficient Context
"Review ProductController for our API:
**Context:**
- Public API used by mobile app and web frontend
- Handles 10k requests/day, needs to scale to 100k
- Products have categories (belongsTo) and reviews (hasMany)
- Using Laravel 13.x with Sanctum authentication
- Following repository pattern (ProductRepository exists)
**Concerns:**
- Is the response format consistent with our other API endpoints?
- Are we handling errors appropriately?
- Should we add rate limiting?
**Code:**
```php
class ProductController extends Controller
{
public function index(Request $request)
{
$products = Product::with('category')
->paginate(20);
return ProductResource::collection($products);
}
}
```"
**Why it works:** Context about usage, scale, patterns, and specific concerns.
## Architectural Feedback
### Unclear
"Is the architecture good?"
### Clear
"Review the architecture of our payment processing:
**Current design:**
PaymentController → PaymentService → StripeGateway (direct Stripe API calls) → PaymentRepository (database)
**Concerns:**
1. PaymentService is tightly coupled to Stripe. What if we add PayPal?
2. No retry logic for failed payments
3. Webhook handling is in a separate controller, feels disconnected
4. No audit trail of payment attempts
**Questions:**
- Should we use a PaymentGatewayInterface for multiple providers?
- Where should retry logic live? Service or job?
- How to structure webhook handling?
- Best way to add audit logging?
**Current code:** [attach PaymentService.php]"
**Why it works:** Explains current design, identifies concerns, asks specific questions.
## Laravel-Specific Review
### Generic
"Check if this follows best practices"
### Laravel-Specific
"Review for Laravel conventions and best practices:
**Code:**
```php
class UserController extends Controller
{
public function store(Request $request)
{
$validated = $request->validate([
'email' => 'required|email|unique:users',
'password' => 'required|min:8',
]);
$user = new User();
$user->email = $validated['email'];
$user->password = Hash::make($validated['password']);
$user->save();
return response()->json($user, 201);
}
}
Check for:
Why it works: Asks about specific Laravel patterns and conventions.
"Review my code"
"Review this authentication implementation:
My experience: Junior developer, 6 months with Laravel
What I need:
Code:
public function login(Request $request)
{
$user = User::where('email', $request->email)->first();
if ($user && Hash::check($request->password, $user->password)) {
$token = $user->createToken('auth')->plainTextToken;
return response()->json(['token' => $token]);
}
return response()->json(['error' => 'Invalid credentials'], 401);
}
Questions:
Why it works: Sets expectations for depth and style of feedback.
**Focus:** Security vulnerabilities and best practices
**Code:** [attach code]
**Context:** [authentication method, data sensitivity, user roles]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] SQL injection risks
- [ ] XSS vulnerabilities
- [ ] Authorization checks
- [ ] Data validation
- [ ] Sensitive data exposure
**Focus:** Performance and scalability
**Code:** [attach code]
**Current metrics:** [response times, query counts]
**Expected load:** [requests/day, concurrent users]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] N+1 queries
- [ ] Missing indexes
- [ ] Inefficient algorithms
- [ ] Caching opportunities
- [ ] Memory usage
**Focus:** Design patterns and maintainability
**Code:** [attach code]
**Current architecture:** [describe structure]
**Team size:** [number of developers]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] Separation of concerns
- [ ] Testability
- [ ] Coupling between components
- [ ] Code duplication
- [ ] Complexity
**Focus:** Laravel best practices and conventions
**Code:** [attach code]
**Laravel version:** [e.g., 12.x or 13.x]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] Following framework conventions
- [ ] Using appropriate Laravel features
- [ ] Eloquent relationships correct
- [ ] Validation approach
- [ ] Resource/response formatting
Request effective reviews:
Focused requests = actionable feedback.