code-review

par anthropic

Révision structurée de code pour la sécurité, la performance, l'exactitude et la maintenabilité sur les diffs de PR et les modifications de fichiers. Audite les risques de sécurité incluant l'injection SQL, XSS, CSRF, les failles d'authentification et l'exposition d'identifiants. Identifie les problèmes de performance comme les requêtes N+1, les fuites mémoire, la complexité algorithmique et les fuites de ressources. Vérifie l'exactitude pour les cas limites, les conditions de concurrence, la gestion des erreurs et les lacunes de sécurité des types. Fonctionne de manière autonome avec les diffs et les chemins de fichiers ; s'intègre avec le contrôle de source,...

npx skills add https://github.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins --skill code-review

Télécharger ZIP GitHub

23.4k

/code-review

If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.

Review code changes with a structured lens on security, performance, correctness, and maintainability.

Usage

/code-review <PR URL or file path>

Review the provided code changes: @$1

If no specific file or URL is provided, ask what to review.

How It Works

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                      CODE REVIEW                                   │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  STANDALONE (always works)                                       │
│  ✓ Paste a diff, PR URL, or point to files                      │
│  ✓ Security audit (OWASP top 10, injection, auth)               │
│  ✓ Performance review (N+1, memory leaks, complexity)           │
│  ✓ Correctness (edge cases, error handling, race conditions)    │
│  ✓ Style (naming, structure, readability)                        │
│  ✓ Actionable suggestions with code examples                    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  SUPERCHARGED (when you connect your tools)                      │
│  + Source control: Pull PR diff automatically                    │
│  + Project tracker: Link findings to tickets                     │
│  + Knowledge base: Check against team coding standards           │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Review Dimensions

Security

SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
Authentication and authorization flaws
Secrets or credentials in code
Insecure deserialization
Path traversal
SSRF

Performance

N+1 queries
Unnecessary memory allocations
Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths)
Missing database indexes
Unbounded queries or loops
Resource leaks

Correctness

Edge cases (empty input, null, overflow)
Race conditions and concurrency issues
Error handling and propagation
Off-by-one errors
Type safety

Maintainability

Naming clarity
Single responsibility
Duplication
Test coverage
Documentation for non-obvious logic

Output

## Code Review: [PR title or file]

### Summary
[1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall quality]

### Critical Issues
| # | File | Line | Issue | Severity |
|---|------|------|-------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | 🔴 Critical |

### Suggestions
| # | File | Line | Suggestion | Category |
|---|------|------|------------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | Performance |

### What Looks Good
- [Positive observations]

### Verdict
[Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]

If Connectors Available

If ~~source control is connected:

Pull the PR diff automatically from the URL
Check CI status and test results

If ~~project tracker is connected:

Link findings to related tickets
Verify the PR addresses the stated requirements

If ~~knowledge base is connected:

Check changes against team coding standards and style guides

Tips

Provide context — "This is a hot path" or "This handles PII" helps me focus.
Specify concerns — "Focus on security" narrows the review.
Include tests — I'll check test coverage and quality too.