mcpbeat Sign in

Classifying Review Findings Agent Skill

Use this skill when categorizing code review findings into severity levels. Apply when determining which emoji and label to use for PR comments, deciding if an issue should be flagged at all, or classifying findings as CRITICAL, IMPORTANT, DEBT, SUGGESTED, or QUESTION.

679 tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
1
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
129
stars on the repo
on the repository, not the skill itself

Install

one command, takes just this skill from the repository
npx skills add https://github.com/bitwarden/ai-plugins --skill classifying-review-findings

The instruction itself

5 sections, as written by the author

Classifying Review Findings

Severity Categories

| Emoji | Category | Criteria |

| ----- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| ❌ | CRITICAL | Will break, crash, expose data, or violate requirements |

| ⚠️ | IMPORTANT | Missing error handling, unhandled edge cases, could cause bugs |

| ♻️ | DEBT | Duplicates patterns, violates conventions, needs rework within 6 months |

| 🎨 | SUGGESTED | Measurably improves security, reduces complexity by 3+, eliminates bug classes |

| ❓ | QUESTION | Requires human knowledge - unclear requirements, intent, or system conflicts |

ALWAYS use hybrid emoji + text format for each finding (if multiple severities apply, use the most severe: ❌ > ⚠️ > ♻️ > 🎨 > ❓):

Before Classifying

Verify ALL three:

  • Can you trace the execution path showing incorrect behavior?
  • Is this handled elsewhere (error boundaries, middleware, validators)?
  • Are you certain about framework behavior and language semantics?

If any answer is "no" or "unsure" → DO NOT classify as a finding.

Not Valid Findings (Reject)

  • Praise ("great implementation")
  • Vague suggestions ("could be simpler")
  • Style preferences without enforced standard
  • Naming nitpicks unless actively misleading
  • PR metadata issues (title, description, test plan) - handled by summary skill, not classified here
  • Renovate/Dependabot minor/patch updates to existing dependencies with passing CI — these are routine Stage 5 monitoring, not reviewable findings

Suggested Improvements (🎨) Criteria

Only suggest improvements that provide measurable value:

  • Security gain - Eliminates entire vulnerability class (SQL injection, XSS, etc.)
  • Complexity reduction - Reduces cyclomatic complexity by 3+, eliminates nesting level
  • Bug prevention - Makes entire category of bugs impossible (type safety, null safety)
  • Performance gain - Reduces O(n²) to O(n), eliminates N+1 queries (provide evidence)

Provide concrete metrics:

  • ❌ "This could be simpler"
  • ✅ "This has cyclomatic complexity of 12; extracting validation logic would reduce to 6"

If you can't measure the improvement, don't suggest it.

Other skills for the same job

different authors, same section of the catalogue
Receiving Code Review
by ZhanlinCui
×7

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

2k tokens
Requesting Code Review
by ZhanlinCui
×6

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

2k tokens
Git Commit
by github
vendor ×3

Execute git commit with conventional commit message analysis, intelligent staging, and message generation. Use when user asks to commit changes, create a git commit, or mentions "/commit". Supports: (1) Auto-detecting type and scope from changes, (2) Generating conventional commit messages from diff, (3) Interactive commit with optional type/scope/description overrides, (4) Intelligent file staging for logical grouping

799 tokens
Github Code Review
by ComeOnOliver
×3

Comprehensive GitHub code review with AI-powered swarm coordination

13k tokens
Karpathy Guidelines
by hyyhf
×3

Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.

629 tokens
Code Reviewer
by google-gemini
vendor ×2

Use this skill to review code. It supports both local changes (staged or working tree) and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). It focuses on correctness, maintainability, and adherence to project standards.

795 tokens
Agent MD Refactor
by softaworks
×2

Refactor bloated AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, or similar agent instruction files to follow progressive disclosure principles. Splits monolithic files into organized, linked documentation.

4k tokens
Commit Work
by softaworks
×2

Create high-quality git commits: review/stage intended changes, split into logical commits, and write clear commit messages (including Conventional Commits). Use when the user asks to commit, craft a commit message, stage changes, or split work into multiple commits.

2k tokens

How to use it

Copy the folder

Take bitwarden/classifying-review-findings from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.

Check the name does not clash

The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.