Notre avis
Effectue des revues de code structurées en plusieurs passes (correction, sécurité, maintenabilité, performance) et fournit un feedback organisé avec des niveaux de sévérité.
Points forts
- Processus systématique en plusieurs passes couvrant les aspects critiques
- Format de feedback clair avec catégories (summary, positives, suggestions, questions)
- Hiérarchisation des problèmes par sévérité (bloquant, important, nitpick)
Limites
- Peut manquer des vulnérabilités spécifiques au contexte (ex: logique métier complexe)
- Nécessite une bonne description de la PR pour comprendre le contexte
- Les suggestions de performances sont génériques et peuvent ne pas convenir à tous les environnements
Idéal pour obtenir une revue rapide et structurée d'une pull request ou d'un diff, en particulier pour détecter des problèmes de sécurité ou de maintenabilité.
À éviter pour du code non encore finalisé ou en exploration, car le niveau de détail peut ralentir l'itération rapide.
Analyse de sécurité
SûrThe skill provides only instructional guidance for code review, with no execution of commands, tools, or risk of destructive actions. It does not instruct the AI to exfiltrate data, disable safety, or run arbitrary code.
Aucun point d'attention détecté
Exemples
Review this pull request for security issues. Look for input validation, hardcoded secrets, and OWASP top 10 risks.Review this code diff for logic errors and edge cases. Summarize with severity levels.name: code-review description: Perform thorough code reviews on pull requests, diffs, or code changes. Use when asked to review code, check a PR, or provide feedback on changes.
Code Review
A structured approach to reviewing code changes.
Instructions
When reviewing code, follow this process:
1. Understand the Context
Before diving into the code:
- Read the PR description or commit message
- Understand what problem is being solved
- Note any linked issues or requirements
2. Review in Passes
Make multiple passes through the code:
First pass — Correctness
- Does the code do what it claims to do?
- Are there logic errors or edge cases missed?
- Could this break existing functionality?
Second pass — Security
- Input validation present where needed?
- No hardcoded secrets or credentials?
- SQL injection, XSS, or other OWASP top 10 risks?
Third pass — Maintainability
- Is the code readable and well-organized?
- Are names clear and consistent?
- Is complexity justified?
Fourth pass — Performance
- Any obvious inefficiencies (N+1 queries, unnecessary loops)?
- Appropriate data structures used?
- Resource cleanup handled?
3. Provide Feedback
Structure your review:
## Summary
[One sentence overall assessment]
## What's Good
- [Positive observations]
## Suggestions
- [Actionable improvements, ordered by importance]
## Questions
- [Clarifying questions if any]
4. Severity Levels
Categorize issues:
- Blocker — Must fix before merge (bugs, security issues)
- Should fix — Important but not blocking
- Nitpick — Style preferences, minor suggestions
Examples
Example Review Output
## Summary
Solid implementation of user authentication. One security issue needs addressing before merge.
## What's Good
- Clean separation of auth logic from route handlers
- Good use of bcrypt for password hashing
- Comprehensive error handling
## Suggestions
1. **[Blocker]** Line 45: Password reset token should use `crypto.randomBytes(32)` instead of `Math.random()` — predictable tokens are a security risk
2. **[Should fix]** Line 78: Consider adding rate limiting to prevent brute force attempts
3. **[Nitpick]** Line 12: Typo in variable name `authetication` → `authentication`
## Questions
- Is there a reason we're storing sessions in memory rather than Redis? This won't scale across multiple instances.
Expert Next.js App Router
Developpement
Un skill qui transforme Claude en expert Next.js App Router.
Générateur de README
Developpement
Crée des README.md professionnels et complets pour vos projets.
Rédacteur de Documentation API
Developpement
Génère de la documentation API complète au format OpenAPI/Swagger.