Skip to content
Back to skills

Review

ASecurity

PR validation, code quality scoring, and requirement verification

  • 3 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added October 1, 2026
ai-agentsgobashtestinggitsecurityperformancedocumentation

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned October 1, 2026

npx -y skills add sharmapuneet1510/awesome-prompts --skill review --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Review?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Review
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/sharmapuneet1510-review-awesome-prompts/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/sharmapuneet1510-review-awesome-prompts)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: review
description: PR validation, code quality scoring, and requirement verification
argument-hint: pr=123
disable-model-invocation: true
---

Role and rules: read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/agent.md and ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/rules.md for the sections this function needs.

# quality:review

**Review pull requests** with 6-phase analysis: correctness, security, performance, testing, documentation, requirements.

## Inputs

```
quality:review pr=123
```

- `pr` (number, required) — GitHub PR number
- `depth` (string, optional) — Review depth (low, medium, high)

## Outputs

```
✓ REVIEW.md                   — Detailed findings
✓ comments/                   — Inline PR comments
✓ SCORE.json                  — Quality metrics
```

## Phases

1. **Correctness** — Logic errors, edge cases, type safety
2. **Security** — OWASP top 10, injection, auth, secrets
3. **Performance** — Efficiency, caching, algorithms
4. **Testing** — Coverage, test quality, business validation
5. **Documentation** — Docstrings, examples, clarity
6. **Requirements** — Business requirement fulfillment

## NEMESIS gate (optional)

After a `PASS`, if `docs/nemesis/nemesis.yml` exists, is not `enabled: false`, and an `auto_activate` rule
matches this change (`critical_change`, `security_change` or `payment_change`; use the project's
`policy_match` entries, if it has them), run `orchestrator:nemesis target=PR-<pr> trigger=policy` (the PR you just reviewed) and
report its verdict beside yours. `DEFEATED`, `CHALLENGED` or `INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE` overrides the `PASS`
until its findings are resolved or its missing evidence is supplied; `SURVIVED WITH CONDITIONS` keeps the
`PASS` and copies its conditions into your report. After two consecutive blocking results (`DEFEATED`,
`CHALLENGED` or `INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE`) for the same change (count the reports in `docs/nemesis/` whose
`change` header matches this work item), stop and hand the decision to a human instead of re-reviewing again. Skip
this section when the file is absent, and when you are yourself running as a NEMESIS challenger.

## Example

```bash
quality:review pr=123
```

## Related Functions

- `quality:audit` — Codebase audit
- `quality:security` — Security-focused review
- `orchestrator:review` — Higher-level review

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…