ClawHub

Code Review Checklist

MCP Tools

代码审查清单 - A comprehensive code review checklist and guidance tool. Use when user asks about 代码审查、代码检查、PR review、代码质量, or wants to conduct or prepare for a code review. Provides systematic checklist items and best practices.

Install

openclaw skills install code-review-checklist

Code Review Checklist (代码审查清单)

Overview

This skill provides a systematic approach to code reviews. It offers comprehensive checklist items across multiple dimensions of code quality, helps reviewers focus on high-impact areas, and guides developers in preparing code for review. Designed to make code reviews more efficient and thorough.

When to Use This Skill

  • Preparing code for pull request review
  • Conducting a code review as a reviewer
  • Self-reviewing own code before submission
  • Establishing code review standards for a team
  • Training new developers on review best practices
  • Auditing code quality in a codebase

What This Skill Provides

1. Predefined Checklists

Comprehensive checklist items organized by category:

  • Code correctness and logic
  • Code style and readability
  • Performance and efficiency
  • Security considerations
  • Error handling
  • Testing coverage
  • Documentation
  • Architecture and design patterns

2. Review Guidance

  • What to look for in each category
  • Red flags and common issues
  • Best practices specific to language/framework
  • Questions to ask the author

3. Review Workflow

  • Systematic approach to reviewing
  • Priority ordering of checks
  • Time allocation guidance
  • Documentation requirements

Checklist Categories

1. Correctness & Logic

  • Code produces expected output
  • Edge cases are handled
  • No off-by-one errors
  • Logic is sound and complete
  • No infinite loops or recursion issues
  • Proper use of data structures

2. Code Style & Readability

  • Follows project coding standards
  • Naming is clear and descriptive
  • Functions are appropriately sized
  • Code is not duplicated (DRY principle)
  • Complex logic has comments
  • Formatting is consistent

3. Performance & Efficiency

  • No unnecessary loops or iterations
  • Proper use of caching when applicable
  • Database queries are optimized
  • No memory leaks
  • Appropriate algorithmic complexity
  • Resources are properly released

4. Security

  • Input validation on all user inputs
  • No SQL injection vulnerabilities
  • No XSS vulnerabilities
  • Secrets not hardcoded
  • Proper authentication/authorization
  • Sensitive data properly protected
  • No security misconfigurations

5. Error Handling

  • Errors are caught and handled appropriately
  • Error messages are user-friendly
  • No empty catch blocks
  • Logging is appropriate
  • Graceful degradation where needed
  • No exposing internal error details

6. Testing

  • Unit tests exist for new code
  • Tests cover happy path and edge cases
  • Tests are maintainable
  • Mock usage is appropriate
  • Test coverage meets requirements
  • No flaky tests introduced

7. Documentation

  • Public APIs are documented
  • Complex logic has comments
  • README updated if needed
  • API changes are documented
  • Breaking changes are noted

8. Architecture & Design

  • Follows project architecture patterns
  • Single Responsibility Principle followed
  • Dependencies are properly injected
  • Coupling is minimized
  • Changes are localized appropriately
  • No tech debt introduced unnecessarily

Language-Specific Considerations

JavaScript/TypeScript

  • Proper async/await usage
  • TypeScript types are correct
  • No 'any' type abuse
  • ESLint rules followed

Python

  • PEP 8 compliance
  • Type hints where appropriate
  • Docstrings for public functions
  • No deprecated imports

Java

  • Null safety considerations
  • Resource management (try-with-resources)
  • Stream API usage
  • Concurrent access considerations

Go

  • Error handling conventions
  • Goroutine leak prevention
  • Context usage
  • Naming conventions

Review Workflow

Step 1: Context (2-3 min)

  • Read PR description and motivation
  • Understand what changed and why
  • Check related issues or docs

Step 2: Overview (3-5 min)

  • Scan changed files
  • Identify high-risk areas
  • Note files needing deep review

Step 3: Detailed Review (15-30 min)

  • Follow checklist by priority
  • Comment on issues found
  • Ask clarifying questions
  • Suggest improvements

Step 4: Summary (3-5 min)

  • Summarize findings
  • Categorize issues (Blocking/Suggestion/Question)
  • Approve or request changes

Usage Examples

As a Reviewer

"用代码审查清单检查这个PR"
"帮我审查这个函数的逻辑"
"检查这段代码有没有安全问题"
"看看这个文件有哪些可以改进的地方"

As a Developer

"帮我准备代码审查"
"自审查这份代码,有什么遗漏?"
"检查这段代码的测试覆盖"
"这个代码符合项目规范吗?"

For Team Standards

"生成一个代码审查检查清单"
"我们团队的代码审查标准是什么?"
"前端代码审查有什么特殊要求?"

Output Format

For each review, output:

## Code Review: [PR/Change Title]

### Summary
- Files changed: X
- Lines added/removed: +X/-X
- Risk level: [Low/Medium/High]

### Findings

#### 🔴 Blocking Issues
- [Issue description] - [File:Line] - [Suggestion]

#### 🟡 Suggestions
- [Suggestion] - [File:Line]

#### 🟢 Good Practices Noted
- [Positive observation]

### Checklist Status
- [x] Correctness
- [x] Style
- [ ] Security (needs work)
- [x] Performance

### Recommendation
[Approve / Request Changes / Discuss]

### Action Items
- [ ] Item 1
- [ ] Item 2

Integration with Development Workflow

This skill integrates with:

  • github — For reviewing PRs directly
  • coding-agent — For automated code quality checks
  • opencli — For running linters and formatters

Limitations

  • Cannot execute code to verify correctness
  • Cannot know full system context
  • Best practices may vary by project
  • Language-specific items may be incomplete for niche languages

Acceptance Criteria

  1. ✓ Provides comprehensive checklist coverage
  2. ✓ Can customize for different languages/frameworks
  3. ✓ Identifies common issues efficiently
  4. ✓ Helps categorize issue severity
  5. ✓ Provides actionable feedback
  6. ✓ Saves time in review process
  7. ✓ Helps developers learn and improve
More in MCP Tools