Back to skills
SKILL.md
Review
ASecurityPerform a thorough code review of recent changes
- 3 stars
- 0 votes
- 0 copies
- 0 views
- Added October 14, 2026
Security analysis
100/100npx -y skills add peopleforrester/claude-dotfiles --skill review --agent claude-codeAre you the author of Review?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/peopleforrester-review)---
name: review
description: Perform a thorough code review of recent changes
user-invocable: true
---
# /review - Code Review
Perform a thorough code review of changes.
## Usage
```
/review [file, PR, or commit]
/review # Review staged changes
/review src/auth/login.ts # Review specific file
/review #123 # Review PR #123
```
## Review Process
### 1. Understand Context
Before reviewing:
- What problem does this code solve?
- What was the previous implementation?
- Are there related changes elsewhere?
### 2. Review Checklist
#### Correctness
- [ ] Does the code do what it's supposed to do?
- [ ] Are edge cases handled?
- [ ] Is error handling appropriate?
- [ ] Are there any logic errors?
#### Security
- [ ] No hardcoded secrets or credentials
- [ ] Input validation present
- [ ] No SQL injection vulnerabilities
- [ ] No XSS vulnerabilities
- [ ] Authentication/authorization correct
#### Performance
- [ ] No N+1 query problems
- [ ] No unnecessary loops or iterations
- [ ] Appropriate data structures used
- [ ] No memory leaks
#### Maintainability
- [ ] Code is readable and clear
- [ ] Functions are focused and small
- [ ] Naming is descriptive
- [ ] No code duplication
- [ ] Comments explain "why", not "what"
#### Testing
- [ ] Tests cover the changes
- [ ] Tests are meaningful (not just for coverage)
- [ ] Edge cases tested
- [ ] Tests are maintainable
#### Style
- [ ] Follows project conventions
- [ ] Consistent formatting
- [ ] No leftover debug code
- [ ] No commented-out code
### 3. Provide Feedback
Format feedback clearly:
```markdown
## Summary
[Overall assessment: approve, request changes, or discuss]
## Highlights
- [What's done well]
## Required Changes
1. **[File:Line]** - [Issue description]
```suggestion
// Suggested fix
```
## Suggestions (Optional)
- [Nice-to-have improvements]
## Questions
- [Clarifications needed]
```
### 4. Severity Levels
Use consistent severity markers:
| Level | Meaning | Action |
|-------|---------|--------|
| π΄ **Blocker** | Must fix before merge | Required change |
| π‘ **Warning** | Should fix, potential issue | Strongly suggested |
| π΅ **Suggestion** | Could improve code | Optional |
| π¬ **Question** | Need clarification | Discussion |
| π **Praise** | Well done | Positive feedback |
## Example Output
```markdown
## Code Review: Add OAuth Login
### Summary
Overall good implementation. A few security concerns need addressing
before merge.
### Highlights
- Clean separation of OAuth providers
- Good error messages for users
- Comprehensive token validation
### Required Changes
1. π΄ **src/auth/oauth.ts:45** - Token stored in localStorage
Tokens should be in httpOnly cookies to prevent XSS.
```typescript
// Instead of localStorage, use secure cookie
res.cookie('token', token, { httpOnly: true, secure: true });
```
2. π΄ **src/auth/oauth.ts:78** - Missing CSRF protection
Add state parameter to OAuth flow.
### Suggestions
1. π΅ **src/auth/oauth.ts:23** - Consider extracting provider config
This would make adding new providers easier.
### Questions
1. π¬ **src/auth/types.ts:12** - Why is `expiresAt` optional?
Should tokens always have expiration?
---
**Verdict**: Request changes (2 security issues)
```
## Tips
- Be constructive, not critical
- Explain the "why" behind suggestions
- Acknowledge good work
- Offer alternatives, not just criticism
- Consider the author's experience level
Attribution
Comments
Loading commentsβ¦
Newsletter
Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.