Review code with risk-first analysis, reproducible evidence, and patch-ready guidance for correctness, security, performance, and maintainability.
On first use, read setup.md for integration guidance and local memory initialization.
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.
Memory lives in ~/review-code/. See memory-template.md for structure and starter templates.
~/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| 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 |
Local notes stay in ~/review-code/.
Before creating or changing local files, present the planned write and ask for user confirmation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For each blocking issue, provide a minimally disruptive fix strategy.
Use patch-strategy.md to propose rollback-safe edits, guard tests, and verification steps.
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.
Prioritize high-impact defects over style noise. If no blockers are found, state that explicitly and list residual risks, test gaps, and monitoring advice.
This skill makes NO external network requests.
| Endpoint | Data Sent | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| None | None | N/A |
No other data is sent externally.
Data that leaves your machine:
Data stored locally:
~/review-code/.This skill does NOT:
This is an instruction-only code review skill. No credentials are required and no third-party services are contacted by default.
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.clawhub star review-codeclawhub syncd8f6cf2
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.