code-review
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/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.