Hyperflow code review. Use when the user wants the current diff, a commit, branch, or PR reviewed — verbs like audit, review, "check for issues", "security check", "code review". Multi-level review (L1 quick → L5 exhaustive), writes findings to .hyperflow/audits/, then a fix-gate.
68
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
Multi-level review over a target (default: git diff HEAD + staged). Follow the hyperflow doctrine. Security scan is mandatory at L3+.
| L | Checks |
|---|---|
| 1 | syntax, obvious bugs, formatting |
| 2 | L1 + spec compliance, naming, edge cases |
| 3 | L2 + cross-file consistency, integration risks, security (secrets, injection, path traversal, XSS, missing validation) |
| 4 | L3 + architecture, scalability, accessibility |
| 5 | L4 + adversarial probing, perf profiling, alternatives |
Default to L2; elevate to L3 when the diff touches auth, data, money, or external input.
[Critical] / [Important] / [Suggestion] / [Praise] with file:line + a concrete fix..hyperflow/audits/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHmm>-<scope>.md (status table → TL;DR → findings → security-scan table). Print a one-line summary pointing at the file.Fix all (Recommended) / Critical+Important / Critical only / No. On a fix choice, route the findings into hyperflow-plan → hyperflow-dispatch. On SECURITY_VIOLATION, skip the gate and surface immediately.Audit clean and still writes the file for history.88dcf65
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.