Identify code-quality issues in PRs with severity-labeled findings and fixes.
npx skills add https://github.com/e-t-y-b/etyb-skills --skill code-reviewer-e-t-y-b
Please help me install this Agent Skill. Skill: code-reviewer Source: https://github.com/e-t-y-b/etyb-skills/tree/main/skills/code-reviewer Command: npx skills add https://github.com/e-t-y-b/etyb-skills --skill code-reviewer-e-t-y-b
Code-reviewer provides expert feedback across quality, performance, security, and architecture to help reviewers issue precise, actionable recommendations on PRs, diffs, or audits.
Review a PR and generate a structured, prioritized feedback report across quality, performance, security, and architecture.
High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.
To get actionable code review feedback, evaluate your pull request across code quality, performance, security, and architecture. This process generates severity-labeled findings with concrete fixes, references, and a completion checklist to guide developers.
The best way to review code quality and security in a PR diff is to systematically enforce evaluation across four dimensions: quality, performance, security, and architecture. This produces prioritized, severity-based findings with clear fixes and examples.
Yes, this code review approach works across different programming languages and architectures. It systematically evaluates diffs and PRs to identify code-quality issues, enforcing performance and security checks regardless of the specific tech stack.
You enforce security and performance checks during a code review by applying a systematic evaluation framework. It identifies vulnerabilities and performance anti-patterns, outputting severity-labeled findings with concrete fixes and references for developers.
Yes, you can use this for design audits and policy-compliance checks in codebases of any size. It evaluates architecture and quality dimensions to provide expert feedback and structured, prioritized recommendations.
A structured code review process ensures systematic evaluation across quality, performance, security, and architecture. Unlike ad-hoc comments, it outputs prioritized, severity-based findings with concrete fixes, examples, and a completion checklist for comprehensive coverage.
JaviMalignoAnalyze code diffs for quality, security, and performance issues.
rbaumierReview code changes for correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance.
aaronbassettAutomate code reviews with analysis, checklists, and reports for multi-language projects.
d-o-hubReview Rust code quality across eight dimensions including async patterns and error handling.
