mcpbeat Sign in

Common Code Review Agent Skill

Conduct high-quality, persona-driven code reviews. Use when reviewing PRs, critiquing code quality, or analyzing changes for team feedback.

2k tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
6
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
536
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/HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard --skill common-code-review

What comes with it

7 452 bytes besides the instruction
references/checklist.md
references/lenses.md
references/output-format.md
references/report.md
references/request-template.md

The instruction itself

10 sections, as written by the author

Code Review Expert

Priority: P1 (HIGH)

Role: Principal Engineer / senior review. Focus: logic, security, architecture. constructive.

Review Principles

  • Substance > Style: Ignore formatting. Find bugs, flaws, design errors.
  • Questions > Commands: " this handle null?" instead of "Fix this."
  • Clarity: Group by [BLOCKER], [MAJOR], [NIT].
  • Sync: Enforce active framework P0 rules.
  • Evidence First: Findings need file, AC, test, or diff evidence.
  • Findings First: Lead with risks, not summary.
  • Review completeness: Include test coverage and edge-case coverage even when CI is green or the requester asks for a quick review.

Review Checklist (Mandatory)

  • [ ] Security: No injection, secrets, auth leaks.
  • [ ] Efficiency: No N+1 queries, memory leaks, high Big O.
  • [ ] Logic: Requirements met. Edge cases handled.
  • [ ] Clean Code: DRY/SOLID. Intent-revealing names.

See references/checklist.md.

Output Format (Strict)


Every substantive finding must include the literal `Why:` field. If code or a diff is missing, state the evidence needed before offering a substantive finding.
[SEVERITY] [File] Issue Description
Why: Risk or impact description.
Fix: 1-2 line code or action.

Red Flags

  • Stop if you are praising before reviewing: Start with findings.
  • Stop if a claim lacks evidence: Mark it as assumption or inspect more.
  • Stop if you are reviewing style only: Return to behavior, security, tests.

Rationalization Prevention

  • "It probably handles that edge case": Probably is not evidence.
  • "CI is green so review is done": Tests do not replace review.
  • "Only style matters here": Ignore style, not behavioral risk.

Anti-Patterns

  • No Nitpicking: Ignore style; focus on impact.
  • No Vague Demands: Explain _why_ and _how_.
  • No Skimming: Review tests and edge cases.

References

  • Output Templates
  • Full Checklist

Canonical response anchors

When this skill applies, preserve the following domain terminology or equivalent concrete examples in the answer when relevant:

  • BLOCKER
  • Check
  • MAJOR
  • edge cases
  • tests

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 hoangnguyen0403/common-code-review 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.