Claude Code Plugins

Community-maintained marketplace

Feedback

code-review

@JacobFV/me
1
0

Systematic code review checklist

Install Skill

1Download skill
2Enable skills in Claude

Open claude.ai/settings/capabilities and find the "Skills" section

3Upload to Claude

Click "Upload skill" and select the downloaded ZIP file

Note: Please verify skill by going through its instructions before using it.

SKILL.md

name code-review
description Systematic code review checklist
version 1.0.0
tags code-quality, review, best-practices
domains software-development

Overview

A systematic approach to reviewing code changes, whether self-review before committing or reviewing others' pull requests.

When to Use

  • Before committing code
  • Reviewing pull requests
  • Auditing existing code
  • After making significant changes

Review Checklist

1. Correctness

  • Does the code do what it's supposed to do?
  • Are edge cases handled?
  • Are there any obvious bugs?
  • Do tests pass?

2. Security

  • No hardcoded secrets or credentials
  • Input validation present
  • SQL injection prevention (parameterized queries)
  • XSS prevention (output encoding)
  • Authentication/authorization checks

3. Performance

  • No N+1 query problems
  • Appropriate caching
  • No unnecessary loops or allocations
  • Reasonable algorithmic complexity

4. Maintainability

  • Clear naming (variables, functions, classes)
  • Single responsibility (each function does one thing)
  • No excessive complexity
  • Reasonable file/function length

5. Testing

  • Tests cover happy path
  • Tests cover edge cases
  • Tests are readable and maintainable
  • No flaky tests

6. Documentation

  • Complex logic is commented
  • Public APIs are documented
  • README updated if needed

Steps

  1. Understand the context - What problem is being solved?
  2. Read the diff - Understand what changed
  3. Run through checklist - Check each category
  4. Test locally - If significant changes
  5. Provide feedback - Be constructive and specific

Watch Out For

  • Being too nitpicky about style (use linters)
  • Missing the forest for the trees
  • Not understanding the broader context
  • Rubber-stamping without actually reviewing