mcpField
C
code-review-checklist

code-review-checklist

github.com/laurigatesTesting & quality5945 installsUpdated today
Repository

About code-review-checklist

code-review-checklist is a skill that guides manual reviews through an ordered set of checks, from security and correctness to performance, quality, and style. It suits reviewers assessing focused code changes with a consistent checklist.

Key features

  1. 01Priority-ordered review categories
  2. 02Security and secret checks
  3. 03Logic and edge-case checks
  4. 04Performance and resource checks
  5. 05Review output template

Use cases

  1. 01Review a small pull request
  2. 02Check a diff for exposed credentials
  3. 03Verify error handling and edge cases
  4. 04Assess query and resource efficiency

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/laurigates/claude-plugins --skill code-review-checklist

After installing, type/code-review-checklistin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

Code Review Checklist

Structured approach to reviewing code changes.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when...Use something else instead when...
Walking a priority-ordered manual review checklistRunning a full delegated review pass → code-review
Hunting for hardcoded secrets, injection, or N+1 query patternsScanning specifically for anti-patterns → code-antipatterns
Verifying error handling and edge cases in a PR diffTargeting swallowed errors directly → code-hidden-failures --track errors
Applying a deterministic checklist to a small changeRefactoring after the checklist surfaces issues → code-refactor

Review Priority Order

  1. Security (Critical) - Vulnerabilities, secrets, injection
  2. Correctness (High) - Logic errors, breaking changes
  3. Performance (Medium) - Inefficiencies, resource leaks
  4. Quality (Medium) - Maintainability, readability
  5. Style (Low) - Formatting, naming (should be automated)

Security Checklist

Secrets & Credentials
  • No hardcoded API keys, passwords, tokens
  • No credentials in logs or error messages
  • Secrets loaded from environment/vault
Injection Vulnerabilities
  • SQL queries use parameterized statements
  • User input is sanitized before HTML output (XSS)
  • Shell commands don't include user input (command injection)
  • File paths are validated (path traversal)
Authentication & Authorization
  • Auth checks on all protected endpoints
  • Proper session handling
  • Secure password handling (hashing, not plaintext)
Data Exposure
  • Sensitive data not logged
  • API responses don't leak internal details
  • Error messages don't expose system info

Correctness Checklist

Logic
  • Edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values)
  • Error conditions handled appropriately
  • Async operations properly awaited
  • Race conditions considered
Breaking Changes
  • API contracts maintained
  • Database migrations are reversible
  • Feature flags for risky changes
Testing
  • New code has tests
  • Tests cover error paths, not just happy path
  • Existing tests still pass

Performance Checklist

Efficiency
  • No N+1 queries
  • Appropriate data structures used
  • No unnecessary loops or iterations
  • Caching considered for expensive operations
Resources
  • Database connections closed/pooled
  • File handles closed
  • No memory leaks (event listeners removed, etc.)
Scale
  • Works with realistic data volumes
  • Pagination for large result sets
  • Timeouts on external calls

Quality Checklist

Readability
  • Clear, descriptive names
  • Functions do one thing
  • No overly complex conditionals
  • Comments explain "why", not "what"
Maintainability
  • DRY (no copy-paste duplication)
  • Appropriate abstractions
  • Dependencies are justified
  • No dead code
Consistency
  • Follows project patterns
  • Matches existing code style
  • Uses established utilities/helpers

Review Output Format

## Review: [PR Title]

**Risk Level**: LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH | CRITICAL

### Critical Issues
1. [Category] Description (file:line)
   - Impact: What could go wrong
   - Fix: Specific recommendation

### Suggestions
1. [Category] Description (file:line)
   - Why: Reasoning
   - Consider: Alternative approach

### Positive Notes
- [Recognition of good patterns]

Quick Checks

For fast reviews, at minimum check:

  1. Any secrets or credentials?
  2. Any SQL/command injection?
  3. Are error cases handled?
  4. Do tests exist for new code?

Comments

Markdown supported