code-review-and-quality

Reviews code changes across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance before merge.

Updated Mar 14, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/yourlabpt/yourlabpt_website --skill code-review-and-quality-yourlabpt
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: code-review-and-quality
Source: https://github.com/yourlabpt/yourlabpt_website/tree/main/projects/skills/code-review-and-quality
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/yourlabpt/yourlabpt_website --skill code-review-and-quality-yourlabpt

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? Code merged without structured review accumulates correctness bugs, security vulnerabilities, architectural drift, and unreadable logic. This Skill enforces a consistent multi-axis review process so every change is evaluated against the same quality gates before entering the main branch. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Five-Axis Review: Evaluates every change across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance with concrete checklists per axis. - Severity-Labeled Feedback: Categorizes findings as Critical, Required, Nit, Optional, or FYI so authors know exactly what must be addressed before merge. - Change Sizing and Splitting Guidance: Enforces reviewable change sizes (~100 lines ideal, ~1000 too large) with stacking, horizontal, and vertical splitting strategies. - Dependency Discipline: Requires changelog review, one-dependency-per-change upgrades, lockfile diff review, and audit triage for any dependency modification. - Use Case: Before merging a pull request that adds a new API endpoint, run the review checklist to verify tests cover edge cases, inputs are validated at boundaries, no N+1 queries exist, and the change description stands alone in version control history. ## Quick Start Review this pull request across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance, and label each finding by severity.

Frequently Asked Questions about code-review-and-quality

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I review a pull request before merging?▼

Review a pull request by first understanding its intent, then checking tests, then walking the implementation across five axes: correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance. Label every finding by severity so the author knows what is required versus optional.

What should a code review checklist include?▼

A code review checklist should cover correctness against the spec, edge case and error handling, naming and simplicity, architectural fit, input validation and secret hygiene, and performance issues like N+1 queries. It should end with a verification step confirming tests pass and the build succeeds.

How large should a pull request be for effective review?▼

A pull request should change roughly 100 lines to be reviewable in one sitting, with 300 lines acceptable for a single logical change. Around 1000 changed lines is too large and should be split using stacking, file-group, horizontal, or vertical strategies.

How should I review dependency upgrades safely?▼

Review dependency upgrades by reading the changelog rather than trusting semver, upgrading one dependency per change, and verifying with a green test suite before and after. Also review the lockfile diff since a single direct bump can pull in many transitive changes.

When is it acceptable to approve imperfect code?▼

Approve a change when it definitely improves overall code health, even if it is not exactly how you would have written it. Block only on genuine correctness, security, or structural regressions, and label minor style preferences as nits the author may ignore.

Why does AI-generated code need more review scrutiny?▼

AI-generated code is confident and plausible even when wrong, so it needs more scrutiny rather than less. Passing tests alone are insufficient since they do not catch architecture problems, security issues, or readability concerns.