review-code

Name: review-code
Author: gtrabanco

15stars2forks

How to install review-code?

gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-code

$npx -y skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-code

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Internal correctness + simplification review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Checks correctness, error handling, duplication, dead code, and simplification opportunities against the project's own co

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Review Code (internal)
2
3	Composed by `review-change` / `product-audit` within their conversation — on any
4	agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. **Findings only; never edits,
5	never refactors.**
6
7	## Scope
8
9	The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the
10	default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.
11
12	## Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)
13
14	✓ No logic errors on the changed paths (trace each modified function's inputs →
15	outputs, including boundary values)
16	✓ Every error path is handled — no swallowed exceptions, no empty catch, no
17	silently-ignored return codes
18	✓ No duplicated logic (a changed block does not re-implement an existing
19	helper — cite the existing one if it does)
20	✓ No dead code introduced (unused functions, params, imports, unreachable
21	branches)
22	✓ No leftover TODO/FIXME/HACK markers in the diff
23	✓ Naming and file conventions match the project's docs (read them first; cite
24	the convention violated)
25	✓ No new abstraction beyond what the SPEC requires (an interface/base class
26	with one implementation is a finding)
27	✓ No new dependency not justified in the SPEC
28	✓ Simplification: any changed block that can lose lines without losing
29	behavior (cite before/after)
30	✓ Edge cases the SPEC's dev scenarios name are actually handled in code, not
31	just in tests
32
33	## Return exactly
34
35	```
36	REVIEW CODE — scope: <scope>
37
38	\| # \| Finding \| Sev \| Evidence \| Suggested fix \|
39	\|---\|---------\|-----\|----------\|---------------\|
40	\| 1 \| <what> \| critical\|major\|minor \| <file:line> \| <smallest action> \|
41
42	Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
43	Summary: <1-2 sentences>
44	Decision: PASS \| FAIL
45	```
46
47	FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings
48	never block — they route to the caller's triage step.
49
50	## Done when
51
52	- Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output)
53	or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
54	- The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and
55	no code was changed.

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

review-code

15stars2forks

View on GitHub

How to install review-code?

gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-code

$npx -y skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-code

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Review Code (internal)
2
3	Composed by `review-change` / `product-audit` within their conversation — on any
4	agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. **Findings only; never edits,
5	never refactors.**
6
7	## Scope
8
9	The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the
10	default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.
11
12	## Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)
13
14	✓ No logic errors on the changed paths (trace each modified function's inputs →
15	outputs, including boundary values)
16	✓ Every error path is handled — no swallowed exceptions, no empty catch, no
17	silently-ignored return codes
18	✓ No duplicated logic (a changed block does not re-implement an existing
19	helper — cite the existing one if it does)
20	✓ No dead code introduced (unused functions, params, imports, unreachable
21	branches)
22	✓ No leftover TODO/FIXME/HACK markers in the diff
23	✓ Naming and file conventions match the project's docs (read them first; cite
24	the convention violated)
25	✓ No new abstraction beyond what the SPEC requires (an interface/base class
26	with one implementation is a finding)
27	✓ No new dependency not justified in the SPEC
28	✓ Simplification: any changed block that can lose lines without losing
29	behavior (cite before/after)
30	✓ Edge cases the SPEC's dev scenarios name are actually handled in code, not
31	just in tests
32
33	## Return exactly
34
35	```
36	REVIEW CODE — scope: <scope>
37
38	\| # \| Finding \| Sev \| Evidence \| Suggested fix \|
39	\|---\|---------\|-----\|----------\|---------------\|
40	\| 1 \| <what> \| critical\|major\|minor \| <file:line> \| <smallest action> \|
41
42	Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
43	Summary: <1-2 sentences>
44	Decision: PASS \| FAIL
45	```
46
47	FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings
48	never block — they route to the caller's triage step.
49
50	## Done when
51
52	- Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output)
53	or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
54	- The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and
55	no code was changed.

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type