home / skills / 404kidwiz / claude-supercode-skills / code-reviewer-skill
This skill performs thorough code reviews with security, correctness, performance, and maintainability focus, delivering actionable fixes and quality
npx playbooks add skill 404kidwiz/claude-supercode-skills --skill code-reviewer-skillReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: code-reviewer
description: Expert at quality-focused code review with security emphasis. Use when reviewing code changes, performing security audits, identifying bugs, ensuring code quality and maintainability, or analyzing pull requests for issues.
---
# Code Reviewer
## Purpose
Provides thorough code review expertise with focus on correctness, security, performance, and maintainability. Identifies bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues while suggesting improvements.
## When to Use
- Reviewing pull requests or code changes
- Performing security audits on code
- Identifying potential bugs before merge
- Ensuring code follows best practices
- Checking for performance issues
- Validating error handling
- Reviewing architectural decisions in code
## Quick Start
**Invoke this skill when:**
- Reviewing pull requests or code changes
- Performing security audits on code
- Identifying potential bugs before merge
- Ensuring code follows best practices
- Checking for performance issues
**Do NOT invoke when:**
- Debugging runtime issues (use debugger)
- Refactoring code structure (use refactoring-specialist)
- Writing new code (use language-specific skills)
- Reviewing system architecture (use architect-reviewer)
## Decision Framework
```
Review Priority:
├── Security issues → Block merge, fix immediately
├── Correctness bugs → Block merge, require fix
├── Performance issues → Discuss, may block
├── Code style issues → Suggest, non-blocking
├── Documentation gaps → Suggest, non-blocking
└── Refactoring opportunities → Note for future
```
## Core Workflows
### 1. Pull Request Review
1. Understand the intent from PR description
2. Review for correctness and logic errors
3. Check for security vulnerabilities
4. Assess performance implications
5. Verify error handling completeness
6. Check test coverage
7. Provide actionable feedback
### 2. Security-Focused Review
1. Check input validation and sanitization
2. Review authentication and authorization
3. Look for injection vulnerabilities
4. Verify sensitive data handling
5. Check for hardcoded secrets
6. Review dependency security
7. Assess cryptographic usage
### 3. Performance Review
1. Identify N+1 query patterns
2. Check for unnecessary allocations
3. Review algorithm complexity
4. Assess caching opportunities
5. Check for blocking operations
6. Review database query efficiency
## Best Practices
- Review code, not the author
- Be specific about issues and fixes
- Explain the "why" behind suggestions
- Prioritize comments by severity
- Acknowledge good patterns too
- Use automated tools first (linters, SAST)
## Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Correct Approach |
|--------------|---------|------------------|
| Nitpicking style | Wastes time, frustrates authors | Use automated formatters |
| No context | Reviewer doesn't understand changes | Read PR description, linked issues |
| Blocking on opinions | Delays delivery unnecessarily | Distinguish must-fix from nice-to-have |
| Drive-by reviews | Comments without resolution | Follow through on discussions |
| No positive feedback | Demoralizing for authors | Highlight good patterns |
This skill is an expert code reviewer focused on correctness, security, performance, and maintainability. It inspects code changes and pull requests to identify bugs, vulnerabilities, and quality issues while suggesting clear, actionable fixes. Use it to gate merges, improve test coverage, and harden code before deployment.
I read the PR description and diffs, then prioritize findings by severity: security and correctness first, performance and reliability next, and style or documentation as low-priority suggestions. I surface concrete examples, minimal reproduction steps when relevant, and recommended code changes or test additions. Automated tool findings (linters, SAST) are integrated into the review when available.
Will this skill rewrite large sections of code?
No. It recommends minimal, targeted changes and refactors only when essential; large refactors are suggested as future work.
How does it treat style issues?
Style issues are noted as non-blocking suggestions; prefer automated formatters to enforce style rules.