Review Code

Review code with risk-first analysis, reproducible evidence, and patch-ready guidance for correctness, security, performance, and maintainability.

Setup

On first use, read setup.md for integration guidance and local memory initialization.

When to Use

User asks for a code review, PR review, merge-readiness check, or bug-risk audit before shipping. Agent delivers a risk-ranked review with explicit evidence, impact, confidence, and concrete fix direction.

Architecture

Memory lives in ~/review-code/. See memory-template.md for structure and starter templates.

text

~/review-code/
├── memory.md             # Review preferences, stack context, and recent constraints
├── findings/             # Optional per-review finding logs
├── baselines/            # Team conventions and accepted risk baselines
└── sessions/             # Session summaries for ongoing audits

Quick Reference

Topic	File
Setup and integration behavior	setup.md
Memory schema and templates	memory-template.md
End-to-end review execution flow	review-workflow.md
Severity and confidence calibration	severity-and-confidence.md
Language and architecture risk checks	language-risk-checklists.md
Test impact requirements by change type	test-impact-playbook.md
Comment and report templates	comment-templates.md
Patch strategy for actionable fixes	patch-strategy.md

Data Storage

Local notes stay in ~/review-code/. Before creating or changing local files, present the planned write and ask for user confirmation.

Core Rules

1. Define the Review Contract First

Confirm target scope before reviewing: branch, files, risk tolerance, and release context. If scope is unclear, state assumptions explicitly and keep findings tied to those assumptions.

2. Start With Risk Mapping, Then Deep Dive

Run a fast pass to locate high-risk zones first: auth, money, data integrity, concurrency, and migration paths. Only then perform line-level analysis with review-workflow.md so major failures are surfaced early.

3. Every Finding Must Be Evidence-Backed

Do not report vague concerns. Each finding must include: trigger location, concrete failure mode, user or business impact, and minimal reproduction clue. If evidence is weak, mark low confidence or downgrade to a question.

4. Separate Blocking vs Advisory With Severity + Confidence

Use severity-and-confidence.md for consistent triage. Blocking findings must be reproducible or highly probable with strong impact. Advisory feedback must remain concise and never hide blockers.

5. Always Pair Findings With a Fix Path

For each blocking issue, provide a minimally disruptive fix strategy. Use patch-strategy.md to propose rollback-safe edits, guard tests, and verification steps.

6. Tie Review Quality to Test Impact

Map each change to required tests using test-impact-playbook.md. If tests are missing, list the exact scenarios that must be added and why they prevent regressions.

7. Optimize for Signal, Not Volume

Prioritize high-impact defects over style noise. If no blockers are found, state that explicitly and list residual risks, test gaps, and monitoring advice.

Common Traps

• Reporting opinions as facts -> review credibility drops and teams ignore real blockers.
• Mixing blocker and nit feedback without labels -> delayed merges and mis-prioritized fixes.
• Calling something “probably fine” without tests -> silent regressions in production.
• Suggesting large rewrites for local defects -> good fixes are postponed indefinitely.
• Ignoring release context (hotfix vs refactor) -> wrong trade-offs for urgency.
• Missing migration and backward-compatibility checks -> runtime failures after deploy.

External Endpoints

This skill makes NO external network requests.

Endpoint	Data Sent	Purpose
None	None	N/A

No other data is sent externally.

Security & Privacy

Data that leaves your machine:

• Nothing by default. This is an instruction-only review skill unless the user explicitly exports artifacts.

Data stored locally:

• Review preferences, project constraints, and optional findings approved by the user.
• Stored in ~/review-code/.

This skill does NOT:

• auto-approve code or merge pull requests.
• make undeclared network calls.
• store credentials, tokens, or sensitive payloads.
• modify its own core instructions or auxiliary files.

Trust

This is an instruction-only code review skill. No credentials are required and no third-party services are contacted by default.

Related Skills

Install with clawhub install <slug> if user confirms:

• code - implementation workflow that complements review findings.
• git - safer branch, diff, and commit handling during remediation.
• typescript - stricter typing and runtime safety review for TS-heavy codebases.
• ci-cd - release-gate checks and deployment safeguards after fixes.
• devops - production risk assessment and rollback planning.

Feedback

• If useful: clawhub star review-code
• Stay updated: clawhub sync