mcpField
R
reviewing-code

reviewing-code

github.com/julianobarbosaTesting & quality15100 installsUpdated 4d ago
Repository

About reviewing-code

A code-review skill that uses Codex to assess code quality, bugs, security, and patterns. It also documents review limitations and ways to reduce noisy or incomplete results.

Key features

  1. 01Review code quality and patterns
  2. 02Find bugs and edge cases
  3. 03Check security concerns
  4. 04Account for review limitations

Use cases

  1. 01Assess Go code against idioms
  2. 02Inspect code for security vulnerabilities
  3. 03Review performance concerns

MCP support

Uses `mcp__codex__spawn_agent` to run code reviews.

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/julianobarbosa/claude-code-skills --skill reviewing-code

After installing, type/reviewing-codein Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

Code Review with Codex

Use mcp__codex__spawn_agent for code review.

When to Use

  • Review code quality and patterns
  • Find potential bugs or edge cases
  • Validate against best practices
  • Check for security issues

Usage

{
  "prompt": "Review this code for [quality/bugs/security]: [code or file]"
}

Prompt Examples

  • "Review for code quality and Go best practices: [code]"
  • "Analyze for security vulnerabilities: [code]"
  • "Review for performance issues: [code]"
  • "Does this follow idiomatic patterns? [code]"

Gotchas

  • Codex review is non-deterministic — same code with different invocations gets different priority orderings; pin model version when reproducibility matters.
  • Codex doesn't see staged-but-uncommitted changes by default — pass them explicitly via --include-staged or piped diff.
  • Diff-only review misses cross-file effects — a renamed function's callsite in another file isn't in the diff, so the rename's blast radius isn't surfaced.
  • Review output ranks by Codex's internal severity heuristic — not by user-defined priority; re-rank manually for project-specific concerns.
  • Whitespace-only diffs trigger reviews — pass --ignore-whitespace or you get noise.
  • Large diffs (>500 LOC) get summarized, not reviewed line-by-line — split into focused reviews per file group.

Comments

Markdown supported