Skill

/code-review

Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests.

One skill from claude-skills.

shell

$ npx -y skills add secondsky/claude-skills --skill code-review --agent claude-code

Installs just this skill. Get the whole plugin for auto-invocation.

How it fires

How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.

Fires itselfClaude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.
You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
Slash command/code-review

Context preview

The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.

Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests.

Stats

Stars194

Forks29

LanguageTypeScript

LicenseMIT

Ships with claude-skills

SKILL.md

code-review.SKILL.md

---
name: code-review
description: Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests.
license: MIT
---

# Code Review

Guide proper code review practices emphasizing technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses.

## Overview

Code review requires three distinct practices:

1. **Receiving feedback** - Technical evaluation over performative agreement
2. **Requesting reviews** - Systematic review via code-reviewer subagent
3. **Verification gates** - Evidence before any completion claims

Each practice has specific triggers and protocols detailed in reference files.

## Core Principle

**Technical correctness over social comfort.** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.

## When to Use This Skill

### Receiving Feedback
Trigger when:
- Receiving code review comments from any source
- Feedback seems unclear or technically questionable
- Multiple review items need prioritization
- External reviewer lacks full context
- Suggestion conflicts with existing decisions