Comprehensive checklist for conducting thorough code reviews covering functionality, security, performance, and maintainability
npx skills add https://github.com/ComeOnOliver/skillshub --skill code-review-checklist
Control Cursor AI code editor via CLI. Open files, folders, diffs, and manage extensions.
Systematically evaluate architecture decisions, document trade-offs, and select appropriate patterns. This skill should be used when the user asks about 'architecture decision', 'ADR', 'design pattern selection', 'technology choice', or needs to evaluate architectural trade-offs. Keywords: architecture, ADR, patterns, trade-offs, technical debt, quality attributes, decision record.
Facilitates deliberate skill development during AI-assisted coding. Offers interactive learning exercises after architectural work (new files, schema changes, refactors). Use when completing features, making design decisions, or when user asks to understand code better. Triggers on "learning exercise", "help me understand", "teach me", "why does this work", or after creating new files/modules. Do NOT use for urgent debugging, quick fixes, or when user says "just ship it".
Recall project-first and global-supplement ChatCrystal memories before substantive implementation, refactoring, migration, configuration, investigation, or optimization work. Use when the task is non-trivial, has repository or project context, and prior fixes, decisions, pitfalls, or reusable patterns may change the approach.
Loads org- and repo-level coding rules from Qodo before code tasks begin, ensuring all generation and modification follows team standards. Use before any code generation or modification task when rules are not already loaded. Invoke when user asks to write, edit, refactor, or review code, or when starting implementation planning.
>- Use this skill to run a four-panel adversarial advisory review on any pull request that touches the OpenAPM specification artifact (docs/src/content/docs/specs/openapm-*.md), its inline / sidecar JSON Schemas (docs/src/content/docs/specs/schemas/*.schema.json), or the conformance fixture seed (tests/fixtures/spec-conformance/**). The panel fans out to four spec-ecosystem reviewers (swagger-openapi-editor, oci-distribution-editor, pkgmgr-registry-contract-editor, w3c-tag-architect), each running in its own agent thread, and a spec-editor synthesizer that produces a fold-now / defer-v0.1.1 / defer-v0.2 / reject list plus a ship decision keyed off a 1..10 shocked_meter scale. The orchestrator is labels, no merge gating. The panel is advisory -- it surfaces findings, prioritizes folds, and renders a ship recommendation that the maintainer weighs.
>- Use this skill to run a four-panel adversarial advisory review on any pull request that touches the OpenAPM specification artifact (docs/src/content/docs/specs/openapm-*.md), its inline / sidecar JSON Schemas (docs/src/content/docs/specs/schemas/*.schema.json), or the conformance fixture seed (tests/fixtures/spec-conformance/**). The panel fans out to four spec-ecosystem reviewers (swagger-openapi-editor, oci-distribution-editor, pkgmgr-registry-contract-editor, w3c-tag-architect), each running in its own agent thread, and a spec-editor synthesizer that produces a fold-now / defer-v0.1.1 / defer-v0.2 / reject list plus a ship decision keyed off a 1..10 shocked_meter scale. The orchestrator is labels, no merge gating. The panel is advisory -- it surfaces findings, prioritizes folds, and renders a ship recommendation that the maintainer weighs.
Reviews whether a design is SOUND — solving the right problem, derived from its stated goals and constraints — and emits ranked, evidence-backed findings, not edits. Read when asked to 'review this design', 'is this design sound', 'pressure-test this proposal', 'do a design review', 'does this solve the right problem', 'poke holes in this spec', 'should we build this', or to critique a proposal / spec / ADR / architecture or product decision. Do NOT read when the user wants to AUTHOR one of these — routing a new proposal is frame-a-proposal, a spec is write-a-spec, a decision record is record-a-decision, a postmortem is write-a-postmortem. Do NOT read for code review of a diff, or to fact-check individual claims (that is a correctness pass, a different job).
Take comeonoliver/code-review-checklist from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
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.