review-code skill
scriptsPerforms code reviews of git changes to detect SOLID violations, security risks, and architectural issues using standard or isolated modes.
- GitHub stars
- 155
- Files
- 200
- Last commit
- Nov 10, 2026
- License
- —
- Allowed tools
- —
What does the review-code skill do?
review-code performs code reviews of git changes to detect SOLID violations, security risks, and architectural issues using standard or isolated modes.
Summary generated from the skill's SKILL.md.
About the review-code skill
Performing code reviews with a senior engineer perspective is what this skill enables for developers managing git changes. It identifies SOLID violations, security risks, and architectural issues to ensure code meets delivery constraints and preserves existing contracts. An agent should load this skill when a user needs to validate a pull request or high-stakes code changes before merging.
The skill operates in two distinct modes. Standard mode provides a fast, single-pass review within the main conversation context. Isolated mode offers higher rigor by delegating detection to independent sub-agents and external reviewers, such as pal codereview or pal clink, to eliminate authorship bias. This mode produces a report organized by agreement levels and highlights corroborated findings.
To ensure accuracy, the skill follows a strict sequential workflow that requires loading specific instruction packets and profile checklists before investigating the code diff. It categorizes findings into severity levels from P0 critical issues that must block a merge to P3 low-level style suggestions. Systemic P0 and P1 findings are automatically indexed as kk:review-findings for tracking.
What an agent can do with it
- 1Execute high-stakes isolated reviewsRun a rigorous review using independent sub-agents to ensure findings are not biased by the original author.
- 2Index systemic architectural findingsAutomatically record high-priority systemic issues into a dedicated index for follow-up.
Written from the skill's SKILL.md. Every use case is checked against a quote from it.
How to install the review-code skill
Each command copies the skill folder into the client's skills directory. Restart the client or start a new session to load it.Install the review-code skill in Plugin
/plugin marketplace add serpro69/claude-toolbox /plugin install kk@claude-toolbox
Install the review-code skill in Claude Code
~/.claude/skills/review-code/SKILL.md
$ npx degit serpro69/claude-toolbox/klaude-plugin/skills/review-code ~/.claude/skills/review-codeInstall the review-code skill in Claude Code (project)
.claude/skills/review-code/SKILL.md
$ npx degit serpro69/claude-toolbox/klaude-plugin/skills/review-code .claude/skills/review-codeInstall the review-code skill in Codex
~/.agents/skills/review-code/SKILL.md
$ npx degit serpro69/claude-toolbox/klaude-plugin/skills/review-code ~/.agents/skills/review-codeInstall the review-code skill in Gemini CLI
~/.gemini/skills/review-code/SKILL.md
$ npx degit serpro69/claude-toolbox/klaude-plugin/skills/review-code ~/.gemini/skills/review-codeInstall the review-code skill in Claude.ai
npx degit serpro69/claude-toolbox/klaude-plugin/skills/review-code review-code && zip -r review-code.zip review-code # claude.ai → Customize → Skills → + → Create skill → Upload a skill → review-code.zip
Automated checks
Ran Nov 14, 2026Full report →Not verified yet. A skill needs a score of 80, no serious finding, and enough data for us to check. How checks work · What to fix for more points
- Source repository linked and reachableserpro69/claude-toolbox/klaude-plugin/skills/review-code is public and reachablegithub.com/serpro69/claude-toolbox/tree/HEAD/klaude-plugin/s ↗Pass
- Open source license (OSI)No licenseFinding
- Commit or release in the last yearLast commit 2026-11-10github.com/serpro69/claude-toolbox/commits ↗Pass
- No download-and-run or credential theft in scripts5 of 43 scripts read; none of them downloads and runs code, the rest were not readFinding
- No hidden instructions in SKILL.mdNo override phrases, safeguard switches, credential requests or hidden charactersgithub.com/serpro69/claude-toolbox/blob/HEAD/klaude-plugin/s ↗Pass
- Pre-approved tools are scopedNo pre-approved tools; the agent asks before using onegithub.com/serpro69/claude-toolbox/blob/HEAD/klaude-plugin/s ↗Pass
- SKILL.md follows the Agent Skills formatValid name and description; says when to use it; 107 linesgithub.com/serpro69/claude-toolbox/blob/HEAD/klaude-plugin/s ↗Pass
SKILL.md
View on GitHubCode Review
Overview
Review whether the current changes achieve their intended behavior, preserve affected contracts and meet applicable delivery constraints. Apply SOLID, architecture, security, quality and removal guidance alongside that reasoning. Default to review-only output unless the user asks to implement changes.
Conventions
Load these through packet-preparation.md's preparation sequence. It supplies complete original instruction text in fewer Read calls; the direct-read fallback uses the same sources.
- Read capy knowledge base conventions at shared-capy-knowledge-protocol.md.
- Always read change context at shared-change-context.md and the common method at functional-review.md, even when no profile matches.
- Read task scope at shared-review-scope-protocol.md; pending work does not excuse regressions in current flows.
- Read profile detection at shared-profile-detection.md. Use its records to select and load domain guidance before investigation.
Required Outputs
Before declaring the review complete, verify all outputs are delivered:
- Review report presented to user
- Intent, scope/baselines, inspected behavior, applicable compatibility conclusions and evidence limits reported
- P0/P1 systemic findings indexed as
kk:review-findings(skip if no qualifying findings) - Required next steps handled, or clean review closed without proposing new work
Indexing is owned by this skill — callers (e.g., /kk:implement) do NOT duplicate it.
Review Modes
Standard Mode (/kk:review-code)
Reviews code in the main conversation context. Fast, single-pass review using the workflow below.
Isolated Mode (/kk:review-code:isolated)
Delegates detection to independent reviewers that did not write the code, then annotates their findings with author context. One internal code-reviewer sub-agent plus external review chosen once at discovery: pal codereview when an API model is available, otherwise one pal clink CLI review per eligible non-authoring provider using its configured model (variable count; on the clink roster the authoring provider is excluded; PAL's shipped clients get default provider mappings that the report labels as assumed, and an operator declaration, for example in the project's CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md, overrides them and is required for any other client name). Produces a report organized by agreement level with corroborated findings highlighted.
- Cost: Higher (sub-agent + one or more external reviews + annotation); clink cost scales with the roster size
- Isolation: True — reviewers have zero authorship bias or session context; each external reviewer gets a fresh conversation
- Degradation: Graceful — a failed reviewer is disclosed and the others proceed; an API runtime failure never switches to clink; if every reviewer fails, suggests standard mode fallback
- Requires: a PAL build whose
listmodelsexposes CLI client observations in every mode for the clink path; unresolved discovery keeps the internal review with an explicit external coverage limit. Operator setup (the minimum PAL build, CLI read access outside the project, provider declarations) is described in the plugin README under "Isolated reviews with external models" - Best for: When extra rigor is worth the cost (pre-merge, high-stakes changes)
See review-isolated.md for the isolated workflow.
Severity Levels
| Level | Name | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | Critical | Demonstrated critical security, integrity or availability impact needing immediate mitigation | Must block merge |
| P1 | High | Logic error, significant SOLID violation, performance regression | Should fix before merge |
| P2 | Medium | Code smell, maintainability concern, minor SOLID violation | Fix in this PR or create follow-up |
| P3 | Low | Style, naming, minor suggestion | Optional improvement |
Workflow
Mandatory ordering — methodology before evidence
The standard workflow below is strictly sequential. Load the process, shared protocols, common functional method and every resolved profile checklist before source investigation, capy_search, findings, edits or tests. After basic process instructions load, the sole early-content exception is bounded inspection to resolve declared detection/conditional-load predicates: at most approximately 16 KiB per candidate file; log predicate/path, and conservatively load an instruction when its conditional is undecidable within the bound. No behavioral analysis or full-diff investigation is permitted during routing.
This ordering is load-bearing, not stylistic. Reviewing from a diff before loading profile checklists is the known failure mode this skill is designed to prevent: the LLM has enough from the diff to produce plausible findings, and optimizes away the methodology if the workflow permits.
Phases (same order as review-process.md):
- Prepare instruction packets — read packet-preparation.md, run the helper below for
bootstrap, and Read every returned part; this loads process, shared protocols, common method and all known detection rules - Select the diff — use status/filenames only; task scope belongs to investigation
- Detect profiles and route checklists — read and reconcile every known detection rule; filename/metadata signals, then bounded declared predicates; no deferred conditionals
- Read every resolved checklist — build and Read the selected checklist packet; its manifest rejects missing index decisions and skipped always-load files. Confirm actual complete Read results before proceeding
- Investigate — read available component contracts and establish context/task scope, then selected diff/current files; trace behavior and historical compatibility, and search relevant knowledge
- Apply profile and general checklists to that behavior
- Self-check findings and confidence through targeted verification
- Index systemic P0/P1 findings as
kk:review-findings - Present findings, coverage and evidence-qualified verdict
- Close a clean review; confirm only supported next steps needing authorization
- Verify required outputs
See review-process.md for the detailed step-by-step process.
Preparation helper: execute scripts/prepare_instructions.py
with Python 3 using its resolved path. The installed path is
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/review-code/scripts/prepare_instructions.py.
The helper reads instructions only and prints packet paths. Creating a packet
does not load it: use Read on every part, including continuations, before source
investigation. If execution is unavailable, use the direct-read fallback.
Invocation
Standard mode:
/kk:review-code
Isolated mode with independent sub-agents:
/kk:review-code:isolated
Files in this skill
200review-code skill questions
How do I install the review-code skill in Claude Code?
Run npx degit serpro69/claude-toolbox/klaude-plugin/skills/review-code ~/.claude/skills/review-code. Claude Code loads skills from ~/.claude/skills (all projects) or .claude/skills (one project) and uses a skill when its description matches the task.
Which clients can use the review-code skill?
Any client that reads the Agent Skills format: Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI and claude.ai (upload as a ZIP). Scripts in the skill run only where the client allows code execution.
What are the different review modes available?
The skill offers Standard Mode for fast, single-pass reviews in the main context, and Isolated Mode which uses independent sub-agents and external reviewers for higher rigor.
Does the review process follow a specific order?
Yes, the workflow is strictly sequential, requiring the loading of process instructions, shared protocols, and profile checklists before any source investigation or behavioral analysis occurs.