code-review-web skill
✓ 인증됨웹 애플리케이션 코드의 버그, 보안 취약점, 성능 병목 현상 및 유지보수성 문제를 검토합니다.
- GitHub 스타
- 1,066
- 파일
- 5
- 마지막 커밋
- 2026년 11월 8일
- 라이선스
- MIT
- 허용된 도구
- —
code-review-web skill은 무엇을 하나요?
code-review-web은(는) agent skill입니다. 웹 애플리케이션 코드의 버그, 보안 취약점, 성능 병목 현상 및 유지보수성 문제를 검토합니다.
skill의 SKILL.md에서 생성된 요약입니다.
code-review-web skill 정보
버그, 보안 취약점 또는 성능 병목 현상을 점검해야 하는 개발자는 이 SKILL을 사용하여 높은 코드 품질을 유지할 수 있습니다. 이 도구는 Pull Request 검토, 운영 환경 장애 디버깅, 빌드 실패 조사, 또는 기존 코드베이스의 보안 및 유지보수성 감사를 위해 설계되었습니다. 사용자가 코드, 에러 메시지 또는 사이트 장애 증상을 제공할 때 에이전트가 이 도구를 로드하면 컨텍스트를 수집하고 특정 실패 패턴을 식별하는 데 도움이 됩니다.
리뷰 프로세스는 정확성, 보안, 성능, 신뢰성, 유지보수성이라는 5가지 측면을 따릅니다. N+1 데이터베이스 쿼리, 클라이언트 번들에 노출된 비밀 정보, 부적절한 환경 변수 전파, 잘못된 캐시 무효화와 같은 구체적인 문제를 식별합니다. 이 SKILL은 인라인 PR 코멘트, 공식 Markdown 리뷰 문서 또는 운영 장애에 대한 사후 분석 보고서와 같은 구조화된 결과물을 생성합니다. 제공된 로그, 특정 기술 스택, 그리고 Next.js 또는 headless WordPress와 같은 프레임워크의 참조 패턴을 기반으로 작동합니다.
agent가 수행할 수 있는 작업
- 1Pull Request 리뷰 수행코드 변경 사항이 메인 브랜치에 병합되기 전에 품질 표준을 충족하는지 검토합니다.
- 2운영 장애 디버깅라이브 웹사이트가 작동하지 않거나 4xx 및 5xx 에러를 반환하는 원인을 조사합니다.
- 3보안 감사 실시코드베이스에서 민감 데이터 노출, 부적절한 인증 또는 입력값 검증 누락 여부를 확인합니다.
- 4빌드 및 배포 실패 진단배포가 실패한 원인이나 환경 변수가 예상대로 작동하지 않는 이유를 식별합니다.
skill의 SKILL.md를 기반으로 작성되었습니다. 모든 사용 사례는 해당 문서의 인용구와 대조 확인되었습니다.
code-review-web skill 설치 방법
각 명령은 skill 폴더를 클라이언트의 skills 디렉터리에 복사합니다. 클라이언트를 재시작하거나 새 세션을 시작하여 로드하세요.플러그인에 code-review-web skill 설치
/plugin marketplace add rampstackco/claude-skills /plugin install rampstack-skills@rampstack
Claude Code에 code-review-web skill 설치
~/.claude/skills/code-review-web/SKILL.md
$ npx degit rampstackco/claude-skills/skills/code-review-web ~/.claude/skills/code-review-webClaude Code (project)에 code-review-web skill 설치
.claude/skills/code-review-web/SKILL.md
$ npx degit rampstackco/claude-skills/skills/code-review-web .claude/skills/code-review-webCodex에 code-review-web skill 설치
~/.agents/skills/code-review-web/SKILL.md
$ npx degit rampstackco/claude-skills/skills/code-review-web ~/.agents/skills/code-review-webGemini CLI에 code-review-web skill 설치
~/.gemini/skills/code-review-web/SKILL.md
$ npx degit rampstackco/claude-skills/skills/code-review-web ~/.gemini/skills/code-review-webClaude.ai에 code-review-web skill 설치
npx degit rampstackco/claude-skills/skills/code-review-web code-review-web && zip -r code-review-web.zip code-review-web # claude.ai → Customize → Skills → + → Create skill → Upload a skill → code-review-web.zip
자동 검사
2026년 11월 15일에 실행됨전체 보고서 →자동 검사를 통과했습니다. 보안 감사는 아닙니다. 에이전트가 실행하기 전에 스크립트를 읽어 보세요. 검사 방식
- 소스 저장소 연결 및 접근 가능rampstackco/claude-skills/skills/code-review-web is public and reachablegithub.com/rampstackco/claude-skills/tree/HEAD/skills/code-r ↗통과
- 오픈 소스 라이선스 (OSI)MITspdx.org/licenses/MIT.html ↗통과
- 최근 1년 내 커밋 또는 릴리스Last commit 2026-11-08github.com/rampstackco/claude-skills/commits ↗통과
- 스크립트에 다운로드 후 실행이나 자격 증명 탈취가 없음No scripts in the skill folder통과
- SKILL.md에 숨겨진 지침 없음No override phrases, safeguard switches, credential requests or hidden charactersgithub.com/rampstackco/claude-skills/blob/HEAD/skills/code-r ↗통과
- 사전 허용 도구가 제한됨No pre-approved tools; the agent asks before using onegithub.com/rampstackco/claude-skills/blob/HEAD/skills/code-r ↗통과
- SKILL.md가 Agent Skills 형식을 따름Valid name and description; says when to use it; 214 linesgithub.com/rampstackco/claude-skills/blob/HEAD/skills/code-r ↗통과
SKILL.md
GitHub에서 보기Code Review for Web
Review and debug web application code with a focus on the patterns that actually break production. Stack-agnostic principles in SKILL.md. Stack-specific patterns in references.
When to use
- Reviewing a pull request before merging
- Debugging a production issue
- Investigating a build failure
- Auditing security or performance of existing code
- Investigating environment variable or configuration issues
- Triaging a "the site is broken" report
When NOT to use
- Writing a new feature spec (use
pm-spec-writing) - Pre-launch QA against the running site (use
qa-testing) - Performance deep-dive on Core Web Vitals (use
performance-optimization) - Deep accessibility compliance review (use
accessibility-audit)
Required inputs
- The code, PR, error message, or symptom under review
- Access to logs (build logs, function logs, server logs) if debugging
- The stack (framework, hosting, database) - even at high level
If just a symptom is provided ("the site is broken"), the workflow's first step is gathering enough context to investigate.
The framework: 5 review dimensions
Every code review covers five dimensions. Pick the depth based on the situation.
1. Correctness
Does the code do what it claims to do?
- Logic matches the intent stated in the spec or PR description
- Edge cases handled (empty states, error states, network failures)
- Off-by-one errors, null/undefined handling, async race conditions
- Tests exist for the change, or there's a reason they don't
- The change does not break existing functionality (regression risk)
2. Security
Does the code expose anything sensitive or open an attack surface?
- Secrets handling. No secrets, API keys, or service-role credentials in client-side code or version control
- Auth checks. Every mutation endpoint validates the caller before acting
- Input validation. User input sanitized before use in queries, file paths, or HTML
- External requests. Outbound URLs validated; no SSRF on user-controlled inputs
- CSRF protection. State-changing requests require a token or same-origin policy
- Rate limiting. Public-facing mutation endpoints have rate limits
- HTTPS-only. No HTTP in production code paths
- Cookies. Session cookies have
Secure,HttpOnly,SameSiteattributes set - Environment variables. Server-only secrets are not prefixed with anything that exposes them to the client bundle
3. Performance
Will this code scale and stay fast?
- Database queries. No N+1 patterns. Joins or batch fetches preferred over loops with queries.
- Pagination. Large result sets paginated, never loaded entirely.
- Caching. Appropriate cache strategy for the data freshness needs.
- Bundle size. Client-side dependencies justified. Tree-shaking working.
- Image handling. Modern formats, lazy loading, explicit dimensions.
- Background work. Slow operations moved off the request path.
- Cold start sensitivity. Cold paths optimized if frequently triggered.
4. Reliability
What happens when this fails?
- Error handling. Caught and handled, not swallowed. Errors logged with context.
- Retries. Network calls have retry logic for transient failures.
- Timeouts. External calls have explicit timeouts (no infinite waits).
- Graceful degradation. Failure of non-critical paths does not crash the page.
- Idempotency. Mutations that might be retried are safe to retry.
- Logging. Enough context in logs to diagnose without reproducing.
5. Maintainability
Will the next person (or future you) understand this in six months?
- Naming. Functions and variables named for what they do, not how.
- Comments. Explain why, not what. The code says what.
- Complexity. Functions do one thing. If a function takes 200 lines, it's doing too much.
- Duplication. Same logic in multiple places gets extracted.
- Dependencies. New dependencies justified. Each one is a maintenance burden.
- Magic values. No literal
60000in code. Use named constants.
Common bug patterns (stack-agnostic)
Patterns that recur across stacks and are worth checking on every review.
Build and deploy
- Build-time data fetches that timeout. Routes that query a database during static generation can fail at scale. Mark them as runtime-rendered if the data must be fresh.
- Environment variables not propagating. A var that works locally but breaks in production usually means it was not added to the production environment.
- Mismatched env between preview and production. Deploys that work in preview but break on the production domain often have stack-specific URLs hardcoded.
URL and domain issues
- Canonical pointing at staging or preview URL. Caused by client-exposed environment variables that pick up the wrong domain. Canonical domain should come from a server-only environment variable.
- API URL pointing at the main domain that loops back. After a DNS cutover, the main domain may now serve a different application. APIs should live on dedicated subdomains.
- HTTPS upgrade issues. Mixed content (HTTP resources loaded into HTTPS pages) breaks browsers' security model.
Cache invalidation
- Stale content after deploy. Either the cache was not invalidated, or the invalidation requires a manual trigger that did not run.
- CDN serving old asset under same filename. Always use a new filename or cache-bust query string when replacing assets.
- Cache headers too aggressive. Long max-age on resources that change frequently leads to users seeing stale content for hours or days.
Database and data
- N+1 queries. Loop with a query inside the loop. Replace with batch fetch or join.
- Missing limits on table scans. Forgetting
LIMITon queries that hit large tables. - Connection pool exhaustion. Too many concurrent connections, often from build-time fetches in parallel routes.
- Schema migration without backfill. Adding a NOT NULL column without populating it for existing rows.
Image handling
- Image not loading after upload. CDN cached the previous filename. Use new filenames for replacements.
- Layout shift from images. Missing width/height attributes. Always specify both.
- Slow LCP from large images. Hero images not optimized for size or format.
External integrations
- Bot mitigation blocking server-to-server calls. CDN or firewall is challenging legitimate automated traffic. Whitelist server IPs or disable challenges for API endpoints.
- API rate limit triggered in production. Worked locally where traffic was tiny. Add backoff and rate limiting awareness.
Security
- Unprotected revalidation or admin endpoints. Always require a secret token.
- PII in URLs. Visible in server logs, browser history, referrer headers.
- Secrets exposed in client bundle. Anything that gets sent to the browser is public.
Workflow
- Gather context. What stack? What's broken or under review? Logs available?
- Pick the depth. Quick scan for a small PR. Full review for a major change. Deep dive for a production incident.
- Run through the 5 dimensions. Note issues by severity (blocker, important, minor).
- Check stack-specific patterns. Reference the appropriate stack guide.
- For incidents: identify the smallest hypothesis-driven fix. Reproduce locally if possible.
- Write the review. Use the template in
references/review-template.mdfor formal reviews.
Failure patterns
- "Looks good to me" on a 500-line PR. If the review takes 5 minutes on a large PR, the review didn't happen.
- Reviewing without running the code. Some bugs only surface at runtime. Pull the branch and run it.
- Over-indexing on style. Bikeshedding on formatting while missing logic bugs.
- Skipping security review on "internal" features. Internal becomes external faster than expected.
- Treating warnings as decoration. Build warnings often become production errors after a dependency update.
- Debugging without reading the full error message. First line of the stack trace is often not the actual cause. Read all of it.
Debugging workflow
When a production issue is reported:
- Read the full error message. Including the stack trace.
- Check hosting build and function logs. The exact failing line is usually here.
- Identify the last working version.
git log --onelineand check recent commits. - Reproduce locally. Confirms it's a code issue and not an environment issue.
- Check environment variables. Especially after deploys or DNS changes.
- Check cache state. Force a cache invalidation before concluding it's a code bug.
- Make the minimal fix. Big refactors during incidents create more incidents.
- Verify in production. Check the actual fix worked, not just that the deploy succeeded.
- Document. What was the root cause? What would have prevented it? File the learnings.
Output format
For PR reviews: comments inline on the PR, plus a summary if needed.
For formal code reviews: a markdown document at code-review-[date].md with:
- Scope (what was reviewed)
- Summary (overall assessment)
- Critical issues (blockers)
- Important issues
- Minor issues
- Suggestions for follow-up
For incidents: a postmortem document. See after-action-report for that format.
Reference files
references/review-template.md- Markdown template for formal code reviews.references/nextjs-patterns.md- Stack-specific patterns for Next.js (App Router, ISR, Server Components, common bugs).references/wordpress-headless-patterns.md- Stack-specific patterns for headless WordPress integrations.
이 스킬의 파일
5code-review-web skill 질문
Claude Code에 code-review-web skill을 어떻게 설치하나요?
npx degit rampstackco/claude-skills/skills/code-review-web ~/.claude/skills/code-review-web를 실행합니다. Claude Code는 ~/.claude/skills(모든 프로젝트) 또는 .claude/skills(한 프로젝트)에서 skills를 로드하며, 설명이 작업과 일치할 때 skill을 사용합니다.
code-review-web skill을 사용할 수 있는 클라이언트는 무엇인가요?
Agent Skills 형식을 읽는 모든 클라이언트(Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, claude.ai(ZIP으로 업로드))가 사용할 수 있습니다. skill 내 스크립트는 클라이언트가 코드 실행을 허용하는 경우에만 실행됩니다.
이 SKILL은 언제 사용해야 하나요?
Pull Request 검토, 운영 환경 이슈 디버깅, 빌드 실패 조사, 보안 감사 또는 사이트 장애 대응 시에 사용합니다.
코드 리뷰 시 어떤 측면을 검토하나요?
정확성, 보안, 성능, 신뢰성, 유지보수성 등 5가지 측면을 검토합니다.