skills.rest
SgtPooki
SgtPookiCOMMUNITY
Explore all skills by this author →
Website𝕏@SgtPookiGitHub

code-standards-review

Review code changes against repo conventions and engineering standards with a verdict report.

1|Updated Mar 24, 2026
Search Tags:#code review#pull request#standards#quality gate#greenfield#verdict#repo conventions
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/SgtPooki/skills --skill code-standards-review-sgtpooki
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: code-standards-review
Source: https://github.com/SgtPooki/skills/tree/main/skills/code-standards-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/SgtPooki/skills --skill code-standards-review-sgtpooki

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve? Code reviews often produce inconsistent, subjective feedback or miss whether a change fits the codebase's long-term conventions, architecture boundaries, and public contracts. This Skill produces a structured, evidence-backed standards review of any code change — a GitHub PR, branch, local diff, or pasted diff — with a clear PASS, PASS WITH CONCERNS, or FAIL verdict. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Verdict-first report: Emits PASS / PASS WITH CONCERNS / FAIL computed mechanically from findings, in either a full gate mode (with a ten-dimension summary table) or a compact quick mode for local work. - Repo-authority-first review: Discovers AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING, ADRs, lint configs, and adjacent exemplars before applying generic principles, so repo conventions override generic SOLID/DRY advice. - Ten review dimensions: Covers repo conventions, architecture boundaries, maintainability, domain model, SOLID/DRY change cost, tests, security, observability, API & semver compatibility, and DX/UX/accessibility. - Greenfield mode: Audits or scaffolds a new project's day-one foundations (CI-enforced formatting, lockfiles, ADRs, AGENTS.md) using the same severity model. - Use Case: Before merging a pull request, ask for a standards review; the Skill inspects the PR via gh, checks the diff against documented repo rules, runs targeted tests, and returns a gate report with file:line-cited findings and a recommended next step. ## Quick Start Review the current branch against main and give me a standards review verdict with evidence-backed findings.

Frequently Asked Questions about code-standards-review

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I review a GitHub PR against repo coding standards?▼

Provide the PR URL or number and request a standards review. The Skill uses gh to fetch PR metadata, the diff, and check status, discovers repo conventions, then emits a gate-mode report with a PASS, PASS WITH CONCERNS, or FAIL verdict and evidence-backed findings.

What is the difference between gate mode and quick mode in a code review?▼

Gate mode produces the full report with a ten-dimension summary table and is used for PRs, pre-merge, and release contexts. Quick mode emits only the verdict, a scope note, findings, and tradeoffs, and is the default for local work and pasted diffs.

Can this review local uncommitted changes instead of a pull request?▼

Yes. It accepts staged, unstaged, or uncommitted local changes, branch comparisons against a merge base, commit ranges, and pasted diffs. It states exactly which changes were included and flags anything that could not be verified.

Does a standards review replace debugging or bug hunting?▼

No. It evaluates whether a change preserves conventions, boundaries, contracts, tests, and maintainability rather than diagnosing why code fails. A correctness defect introduced by the diff is still reported when found, but it is not an exhaustive defect hunt.

When should I use greenfield mode instead of a diff review?▼

Use greenfield mode when bootstrapping a new repository or auditing a young project's foundations rather than reviewing a diff. It checks day-one items like CI-enforced formatting, lockfiles, ADRs, and AGENTS.md, reporting gaps with the same severity model.

Why did my review return PASS WITH CONCERNS instead of PASS?▼

PASS WITH CONCERNS means there are no blocker findings but at least one should-fix finding, an unresolved tradeoff, or a relevant dimension marked not assessed. The verdict is computed mechanically from findings, so the report always lists what caused it.

Related Skills

Explore More Software Engineering Skills→
Huddo121Huddo121
1

code-review

Review code changes in diffs and pull requests for bugs and edge cases.

Community
Intermediate
afonsoftafonsoft

code-review-and-quality

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

Community
Advanced
kdlbskdlbs
562

verify

Run format, typecheck, tests, and lint across monorepo packages.

Official
Intermediate
ORANGECRAB13ORANGECRAB13

code-review

Coordinate multiple AI agents to review pull request diffs and identify defects.

Community
Advanced