mcpbeat Sign in

Review Skill for Claude

Comprehensive code review workflow - parallel specialized reviews → synthesis

1k tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
1
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
3880
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/parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill review

The instruction itself

15 sections, as written by the author

/review - Code Review Workflow

Multi-perspective code review with parallel specialists.

When to Use

  • "Review this code"
  • "Review my PR"
  • "Check this before I merge"
  • "Get feedback on implementation"
  • Before merging significant changes
  • Quality gates

Workflow Overview

         ┌──────────┐
         │  critic  │ ─┐
         │ (code)   │  │
         └──────────┘  │
                       │
         ┌──────────┐  │      ┌──────────────┐
         │plan-reviewer│ ─┼────▶ │ review-agent │
         │ (plan)   │  │      │ (synthesis)  │
         └──────────┘  │      └──────────────┘
                       │
         ┌──────────┐  │
         │plan-reviewer│ ─┘
         │ (change) │
         └──────────┘

         Parallel                Sequential
         perspectives            synthesis

Agent Sequence

| # | Agent | Focus | Execution |

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

| 1 | critic | Code quality, patterns, readability | Parallel |

| 1 | plan-reviewer | Architecture, plan adherence | Parallel |

| 1 | plan-reviewer | Change impact, risk assessment | Parallel |

| 2 | review-agent | Synthesize all reviews, final verdict | After 1 |

Review Perspectives

  • critic: Is this good code? (Style, patterns, readability)
  • plan-reviewer: Does this match the design? (Architecture, plan)
  • plan-reviewer: Is this change safe? (Risk, impact, regressions)
  • review-agent: Overall assessment and recommendations

Execution

Phase 1: Parallel Reviews

# Code quality review
Task(
  subagent_type="critic",
  prompt="""
  Review code quality: [SCOPE]

  Evaluate:
  - Code style and consistency
  - Design patterns used
  - Readability and maintainability
  - Error handling
  - Test coverage

  Output: List of issues with severity (critical/major/minor)
  """,
  run_in_background=true
)

# Architecture review
Task(
  subagent_type="plan-reviewer",
  prompt="""
  Review architecture alignment: [SCOPE]

  Check:
  - Follows established patterns
  - Matches implementation plan (if exists)
  - Consistent with system design
  - No architectural violations

  Output: Alignment assessment with concerns
  """,
  run_in_background=true
)

# Change impact review
Task(
  subagent_type="plan-reviewer",
  prompt="""
  Review change impact: [SCOPE]

  Assess:
  - Risk level of changes
  - Affected systems/components
  - Backward compatibility
  - Potential regressions
  - Security implications

  Output: Risk assessment with recommendations
  """,
  run_in_background=true
)

# Wait for all parallel reviews
[Check TaskOutput for all three]

Phase 2: Synthesis

Task(
  subagent_type="review-agent",
  prompt="""
  Synthesize reviews for: [SCOPE]

  Reviews:
  - critic: [code quality findings]
  - plan-reviewer: [architecture findings]
  - plan-reviewer: [change impact findings]

  Create final review:
  - Overall verdict (APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / NEEDS_DISCUSSION)
  - Prioritized action items
  - Blocking vs non-blocking issues
  - Summary for PR description
  """
)

Review Modes

Full Review

User: /review
→ All four agents, comprehensive review

Quick Review

User: /review --quick
→ critic only, fast feedback

Security Focus

User: /review --security
→ Add aegis (security agent) to parallel phase

PR Review

User: /review PR #123
→ Fetch PR diff, review changes

Example

User: /review the authentication changes

Claude: Starting /review workflow...

Phase 1: Running parallel reviews...
┌────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ critic: Reviewing code quality...          │
│ plan-reviewer: Checking architecture...         │
│ plan-reviewer: Assessing change impact...         │
└────────────────────────────────────────────┘

critic: Found 2 issues
- [minor] Inconsistent error messages in auth.ts
- [major] Missing input validation in login()

plan-reviewer: ✅ Matches authentication plan

plan-reviewer: Medium risk
- Affects: login, signup, password reset
- Breaking change: session token format

Phase 2: Synthesizing...

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Review Summary                              │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES                    │
│                                             │
│ Blocking:                                   │
│ 1. Add input validation to login()          │
│                                             │
│ Non-blocking:                               │
│ 2. Standardize error messages               │
│                                             │
│ Notes:                                      │
│ - Document session token format change      │
│ - Consider migration path for existing      │
│   sessions                                  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Verdicts

  • APPROVE: Ready to merge, all issues are minor
  • REQUEST_CHANGES: Blocking issues must be fixed
  • NEEDS_DISCUSSION: Architectural decisions need input

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 parcadei/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.