mcpField
C
code-review

code-review

github.com/s-hiraokuTesting & quality1881 installsUpdated 3w ago
Repository

About code-review

Code Review is an agent skill for structured, actionable reviews of changes, pull requests, and modules. It prioritizes correctness and security, then covers readability, maintainability, and performance.

Key features

  1. 01Reviews correctness and edge cases
  2. 02Checks security risks
  3. 03Assesses readability and maintainability
  4. 04Flags meaningful performance concerns
  5. 05Organizes feedback by severity

Use cases

  1. 01Reviewing a pull request before merging
  2. 02Auditing a module for technical debt

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/s-hiraoku/synapse-a2a --skill code-review

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

Details

From the project README

Code Review

Perform structured, actionable code reviews.

When to Use

  • Reviewing a pull request or set of changes
  • Evaluating code quality before merging
  • Auditing a module for technical debt
  • Establishing review standards or checklists

Review Dimensions

Review code across these dimensions, in priority order:

1. Correctness
  • Does the code do what it claims?
  • Are edge cases handled? (null, empty, overflow, concurrency)
  • Are error paths tested?
  • Do tests cover the changed behavior?
2. Security
  • Input validation at system boundaries
  • No secrets in code (API keys, passwords, tokens)
  • SQL/command injection prevention
  • Proper authentication and authorization checks
  • See security-audit skill for deeper analysis
3. Readability
  • Clear naming (variables, functions, classes)
  • Functions do one thing
  • No deep nesting (max 3 levels)
  • Comments explain "why", not "what"
  • Consistent style with the surrounding codebase
4. Maintainability
  • No unnecessary abstractions
  • DRY without over-abstraction (rule of three)
  • Dependencies are justified
  • Breaking changes are flagged
5. Performance
  • Only flag when there is a real concern (hot path, large data, N+1 queries)
  • Do not micro-optimize unless the context demands it

Review Output Format

Structure feedback as:

## Review: <PR title or file>

### Must Fix
- [ ] **file.py:42** — [Correctness] Description of the issue and suggested fix

### Should Fix
- [ ] **file.py:78** — [Readability] Description and suggestion

### Consider
- [ ] **file.py:100** — [Performance] Optional improvement

### Positive
- file.py:15 — Good use of context manager for resource cleanup

Severity levels:

LevelMeaningMerge?
Must FixBug, security issue, or broken contractBlock
Should FixSignificant readability/maintainability concernRequest changes
ConsiderOptional improvement, style preferenceApprove with comment
PositiveGood patterns worth highlighting-

Guidelines

  1. Be specific - Point to exact lines, suggest concrete alternatives
  2. Explain why - "This could cause X because Y", not just "change this"
  3. Separate style from substance - Automate style (linters); review logic manually
  4. Limit scope - Review what changed, not the entire file (unless asked)
  5. Acknowledge good work - Include at least one positive observation
  6. Propose, don't impose - "Consider using X" not "You must use X" (unless it's a Must Fix)

Comments

Markdown supported