About review
review is a skill that assesses code changes through ordered passes covering mission, architecture, implementation, craft, security, and performance. It produces a verdict with concrete, verified findings and adapts review depth to the change's scope.
Key features
- 01Review changes against the base-branch diff
- 02Run six ordered review passes
- 03Use project conventions and standards
- 04Verify findings with line references and consequences
- 05Adjust review depth to change scope
Use cases
- 01Review a feature branch before merging
- 02Assess security and performance implications of changes
- 03Produce a reasoned verdict for CI or manual review
Install
Copy the command and run it in a terminal.
npx skills add https:/After installing, type/reviewin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.
Details
From the project READMEReview
Review the change against the passes, then weigh them into a verdict.
If a referenced skill isn't available locally, fetch it from the open-review repo at runtime — the whole directory, subdirectories included. Use npx skills use elliottlawson/open-review@<name> if npx is available; otherwise fetch the directory from GitHub.
Scope
The change is the diff against the merge-base with the base branch (git diff origin/main...HEAD, or the base/range the caller gives). Confirm the ref resolves; if the diff is empty, say so and stop. Skip generated and vendored files.
Step 0 — Find the project's reference material
Find the project's standards and stack with /infer-conventions; use what it loads throughout the passes. If the project has no documented standards, say so in the verdict instead of inventing any.
Passes
Run in order: mission → architecture → implementation → craft → security → performance. Then weigh them into a verdict:
- Approve — mission met, no blocking findings.
- Changes needed — real issues found; name them.
- Hold — mission unclear, or an architectural concern needs discussion first.
Depth calibration. Match depth to scope — a 2-file bugfix is brief; a 30-file feature gets deep coverage.
Verify before you flag. A finding must point at a concrete line and a concrete consequence. If you can't verify it, ask a question instead.
Reporting
Report your findings in prose — severity (critical / warning / info), the pass that found it, the file and line, and why it matters.
- Judge the change, not the codebase. Blocking findings only on new or meaningfully changed code; a pre-existing violation is advisory at most.
- Cite the standard, state the target pattern. When the project has documented standards, name the doc a finding violates and the pattern to follow instead.
- Report repeated issues once. The same issue across multiple files is one finding — note that it applies broadly.
Under CI, /review-as-json wraps this review and shapes the output as JSON.