Our review
Performs a comprehensive code review to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, and deviations from best practices.
Strengths
- Systematic four-phase analysis covering critical, performance, quality, and best practices aspects.
- Provides concrete suggestions with fixed code examples and severity-based prioritization.
- Includes language-specific patterns for Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, and more.
Limitations
- May not catch context-specific logic errors that require business understanding.
- Style suggestions can be subjective and depend on team conventions.
- For very small snippets, the analysis might be overly verbose.
Use this skill before merging code or when requesting a review to get an exhaustive analysis of potential issues.
Do not use it if you want to write new code from scratch or generate unit tests.
Security analysis
SafeThe skill is purely instructional for code review; it does not instruct or involve any execution of code, system commands, or network operations. There are no destructive actions, data exfiltration, or unsafe patterns.
No concerns found
Examples
Review my Python code for bugs and security issues:
def authenticate(username, password):
query = f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE username='{username}' AND password='{password}'"
return execute_query(query)Can you review this JavaScript function for performance problems?
function processItems(items) {
let result = [];
for (let i = 0; i < items.length; i++) {
for (let j = 0; j < items.length; j++) {
if (items[i].id === items[j].refId) {
result.push(items[i]);
}
}
}
return result;
}Review this code for best practices, naming conventions, and potential improvements:
class data:
def __init__(self, x, y):
self.a = x
self.b = y
def calc(self):
return self.a * self.bname: code-review description: Reviews code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and best practices. Activates when user asks for code review, feedback on code, or wants to improve existing code. version: 1.0.0 triggers:
- code review
- review my code
- check this code
- find bugs
- improve this code
- code feedback
- refactor
- code quality
- security review
- performance review domain: code complexity: moderate dependencies: [] browser: false author: auto-generated created: 2025-01-25
Code Review
Overview
Performs comprehensive code reviews focusing on bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, and adherence to best practices. Provides actionable feedback with specific suggestions and code examples.
Auto-Activation Conditions
This skill activates when:
- ✅ User asks to review code or give feedback
- ✅ Request mentions finding bugs or issues
- ✅ User wants to improve or refactor code
- ✅ Security or performance review requested
- ✅ Keywords: review, bugs, improve, refactor, quality, security
Does NOT activate when:
- ❌ User wants to write new code from scratch → use code generation skill
- ❌ User needs documentation → use docs skill
- ❌ User wants tests written → use testing skill
Instructions
Phase 1: Understand the Code
Before reviewing, identify:
context = {
"language": "<detected programming language>",
"purpose": "<what does this code do?>",
"scope": "<function|class|module|full application>",
"framework": "<if applicable: React, Django, etc.>",
"review_focus": "<bugs|security|performance|all>"
}
Phase 2: Systematic Review
Review the code in this order:
1. Critical Issues (Fix Immediately)
-
Security vulnerabilities
- SQL injection
- XSS vulnerabilities
- Hardcoded secrets/credentials
- Insecure data handling
- Missing input validation
-
Bugs & Logic Errors
- Off-by-one errors
- Null/undefined handling
- Race conditions
- Infinite loops
- Wrong operator usage
2. Performance Issues
- Unnecessary loops or iterations
- N+1 query problems
- Missing caching opportunities
- Memory leaks
- Inefficient algorithms
3. Code Quality
- Naming conventions
- Function length (should be < 20 lines)
- Code duplication (DRY violations)
- Missing error handling
- Unclear logic flow
4. Best Practices
- Language-specific idioms
- Framework conventions
- SOLID principles
- Type safety
- Documentation needs
Phase 3: Provide Feedback
Feedback Format
For each issue found:
### [SEVERITY] Issue Title
**Location**: `filename.py:line_number` or code snippet
**Category**: Security | Bug | Performance | Quality | Best Practice
**Problem**:
<Clear explanation of what's wrong>
**Impact**:
<What could happen if not fixed>
**Solution**:
```language
// Fixed code example
Why this is better: <Brief explanation>
#### Severity Levels
| Level | Description | Action |
|-------|-------------|--------|
| 🔴 CRITICAL | Security hole, data loss risk | Fix immediately |
| 🟠 HIGH | Bug that causes incorrect behavior | Fix before merge |
| 🟡 MEDIUM | Performance or maintainability issue | Should fix soon |
| 🟢 LOW | Style or minor improvement | Nice to have |
### Phase 4: Summary & Recommendations
Always end with:
```markdown
## Review Summary
| Category | Issues Found |
|----------|-------------|
| 🔴 Critical | X |
| 🟠 High | X |
| 🟡 Medium | X |
| 🟢 Low | X |
## Top 3 Priority Fixes
1. <Most important fix>
2. <Second priority>
3. <Third priority>
## Overall Assessment
<Brief overall impression and recommendation>
Review Patterns by Language
Python
# BAD: Mutable default argument
def add_item(item, items=[]):
items.append(item)
return items
# GOOD: Use None and create new list
def add_item(item, items=None):
if items is None:
items = []
items.append(item)
return items
JavaScript/TypeScript
// BAD: == instead of ===
if (value == null) { }
// GOOD: Strict equality
if (value === null || value === undefined) { }
// or
if (value == null) { } // Only case where == is acceptable
SQL (in code)
# BAD: SQL Injection vulnerability
query = f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}"
# GOOD: Parameterized query
query = "SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = %s"
cursor.execute(query, (user_id,))
React
// BAD: Missing key in list
{items.map(item => <Item data={item} />)}
// GOOD: Unique key prop
{items.map(item => <Item key={item.id} data={item} />)}
Examples
Example 1: Python Function Review
Input:
def get_user(id):
conn = sqlite3.connect('db.sqlite')
result = conn.execute(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {id}")
return result.fetchone()
Output:
### 🔴 CRITICAL: SQL Injection Vulnerability
**Location**: `get_user` function, line 3
**Category**: Security
**Problem**:
User input is directly interpolated into SQL query using f-string, allowing SQL injection attacks.
**Impact**:
Attacker could extract all data, delete tables, or gain unauthorized access by passing malicious input like `1; DROP TABLE users;--`
**Solution**:
```python
def get_user(id: int) -> Optional[tuple]:
"""Fetch user by ID from database."""
conn = sqlite3.connect('db.sqlite')
try:
cursor = conn.execute(
"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?",
(id,)
)
return cursor.fetchone()
finally:
conn.close()
Why this is better:
- Parameterized query prevents SQL injection
- Type hint documents expected input
- Connection properly closed with try/finally
- Docstring explains function purpose
🟠 HIGH: Resource Leak
Location: get_user function
Category: Bug
Problem: Database connection is never closed, causing resource leaks.
Solution: See fixed code above with try/finally block.
### Example 2: React Component Review
**Input**:
```jsx
function UserList({users}) {
const [filter, setFilter] = useState()
const filtered = users.filter(u => u.name.includes(filter))
return (
<div>
<input onChange={e => setFilter(e.target.value)} />
{filtered.map(user => <UserCard user={user} />)}
</div>
)
}
Output:
### 🟠 HIGH: Potential Runtime Error
**Location**: Line 4, filter operation
**Category**: Bug
**Problem**:
`filter` state is initialized as `undefined`. Calling `includes(undefined)` won't crash, but `filter` being undefined on first render may cause unexpected behavior.
**Solution**:
```jsx
const [filter, setFilter] = useState('')
🟡 MEDIUM: Missing Key Prop
Location: Line 9, map rendering Category: Best Practice
Problem:
React list items missing unique key prop, causing inefficient re-renders.
Solution:
{filtered.map(user => <UserCard key={user.id} user={user} />)}
🟡 MEDIUM: Performance - Unnecessary Recalculation
Location: Line 4 Category: Performance
Problem: Filter runs on every render, even when users array hasn't changed.
Solution:
const filtered = useMemo(
() => users.filter(u => u.name.includes(filter)),
[users, filter]
)
## Quality Checklist
Before completing review, verify:
- [ ] All code paths examined
- [ ] Security implications considered
- [ ] Edge cases identified
- [ ] Performance bottlenecks noted
- [ ] Fixes include code examples
- [ ] Severity levels assigned
- [ ] Summary provided
- [ ] Prioritized recommendations given
## Anti-Patterns in Reviews
- ❌ Vague feedback: "This could be better"
- ❌ No code examples for fixes
- ❌ Nitpicking style when there are real bugs
- ❌ Missing severity levels
- ❌ No explanation of WHY something is wrong
- ❌ Reviewing without understanding context
## Integration
- **Works with**: testing (suggest tests for bug-prone areas), documentation
- **Browser**: Not required
## Changelog
- v1.0.0 (2025-01-25): Initial creation
Next.js App Router Expert
Development
A skill that turns Claude into a Next.js App Router expert.
README Generator
Development
Creates professional and comprehensive README.md files for your projects.
API Documentation Writer
Development
Generates comprehensive API documentation in OpenAPI/Swagger format.