Expert code review of current git changes with a senior engineer lens. Detects SOLID violations, security risks, and proposes actionable improvements.
85
76%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
88%
0.97xAverage score across 8 eval scenarios
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Fix and improve this skill with Tessl
tessl review fix ./frontend/magic-web/.agents/skills/code-review-expert/SKILL.mdPerform a structured review of the current git changes with focus on SOLID, architecture, removal candidates, and security risks. Default to review-only output unless the user asks to implement changes.
| Level | Name | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | Critical | Security vulnerability, data loss risk, correctness bug | Must block merge |
| P1 | High | Logic error, significant SOLID violation, performance regression | Should fix before merge |
| P2 | Medium | Code smell, maintainability concern, minor SOLID violation | Fix in this PR or create follow-up |
| P3 | Low | Style, naming, minor suggestion | Optional improvement |
git status -sb, git diff --stat, and git diff to scope changes.rg or grep to find related modules, usages, and contracts.Edge cases:
git diff is empty, inform user and ask if they want to review staged changes or a specific commit range.references/solid-checklist.md for specific prompts.references/removal-plan.md for template.references/security-checklist.md for coverage.references/code-quality-checklist.md for coverage.Structure your review as follows:
## Code Review Summary
**Files reviewed**: X files, Y lines changed
**Overall assessment**: [APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / COMMENT]
---
## Findings
### P0 - Critical
(none or list)
### P1 - High
- **[file:line]** Brief title
- Description of issue
- Suggested fix
### P2 - Medium
...
### P3 - Low
...
---
## Removal/Iteration Plan
(if applicable)
## Additional Suggestions
(optional improvements, not blocking)Inline comments: Use this format for file-specific findings:
::code-comment{file="path/to/file.ts" line="42" severity="P1"}
Description of the issue and suggested fix.
::Clean review: If no issues found, explicitly state:
After presenting findings, ask user how to proceed:
---
## Next Steps
I found X issues (P0: _, P1: _, P2: _, P3: _).
**How would you like to proceed?**
1. **Fix all** - I'll implement all suggested fixes
2. **Fix P0/P1 only** - Address critical and high priority issues
3. **Fix specific items** - Tell me which issues to fix
4. **No changes** - Review complete, no implementation needed
Please choose an option or provide specific instructions.Important: Do NOT implement any changes until user explicitly confirms. This is a review-first workflow.
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
solid-checklist.md | SOLID smell prompts and refactor heuristics |
security-checklist.md | Web/app security and runtime risk checklist |
code-quality-checklist.md | Error handling, performance, boundary conditions |
removal-plan.md | Template for deletion candidates and follow-up plan |
41d7ef4
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.