Agent-Skills.md

Agent Skills: Code Review Playbook

Use this skill when conducting or improving code reviews. Provides structured review processes, conventional comments patterns, language-specific checklists, and feedback templates. Use when reviewing PRs or standardizing review practices.

document-asset-creationID: yonatangross/orchestkit/code-review-playbook

Repository

yonatangross/orchestkit
yonatangrossLicense: MIT
13314

Install this agent skill to your local

pnpm dlx add-skill https://github.com/yonatangross/orchestkit/tree/HEAD/src/skills/code-review-playbook

Skill Files

Browse the full folder contents for code-review-playbook.

Download Skill

Loading file tree…

src/skills/code-review-playbook/SKILL.md

Skill Metadata

Name
code-review-playbook
Description
Structured review processes, conventional comments, language-specific checklists, and feedback templates. Use when reviewing PRs, conducting code review, or standardizing review practice.

Code Review Playbook

This skill provides a comprehensive framework for effective code reviews that improve code quality, share knowledge, and foster collaboration. Whether you're a reviewer giving feedback or an author preparing code for review, this playbook ensures reviews are thorough, consistent, and constructive.

Overview

  • Reviewing pull requests or merge requests
  • Preparing code for review (self-review)
  • Establishing code review standards for teams
  • Training new developers on review best practices
  • Resolving disagreements about code quality
  • Improving review processes and efficiency

Upstream coverage (do not restate)

This skill is a thin wrapper. General review craft is documented first-party elsewhere; only OrchestKit's own decisions live here. Load Read("${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/code-review-playbook/references/ork-delta.md") for the house rules that survived the retired files.

| Topic | Go here instead | |-------|-----------------| | Review philosophy, speed, tone, PR sizing | https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/ | | Conventional comment labels and decorations | references/conventional-comments.md, https://conventionalcomments.org/ | | OWASP Top 10 review checks | rules/security-baseline.md, https://owasp.org/Top10/ | | Generic language and framework review checklists | rules/typescript-quality.md, rules/python-quality.md, rules/linting-biome-rules.md | | Review report shape and multi-agent full-PR review | ork:review-pr | | Applying findings to the working tree | /code-review --fix, /simplify (see below) | | Security-only pass over the current branch | /security-review | | GitHub review mechanics (approve, request changes, inline comments) | https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests |

Conventional Comments

issue [blocking]: Missing error handling for API call
If the API returns a 500 error, this will crash. Add try/catch.

security [blocking]: API endpoint is not authenticated
The /api/admin/users endpoint is missing auth middleware.

Load Read("${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/code-review-playbook/references/conventional-comments.md") for the full format, labels (praise, nitpick, suggestion, issue, question, security, bug, breaking), decorations ([blocking], [non-blocking], [if-minor]), and examples.

Review Process

1. Before Reviewing

Check Context:

  • Read the PR/MR description
  • Understand the purpose and scope
  • Review linked tickets or issues
  • Check CI/CD pipeline status

Verify Automated Checks:

  • [ ] Tests are passing
  • [ ] Linting has no errors
  • [ ] Type checking passes
  • [ ] Code coverage meets targets
  • [ ] No merge conflicts

Set Aside Time:

  • Small PR (< 200 lines): 15-30 minutes
  • Medium PR (200-500 lines): 30-60 minutes
  • Large PR (> 500 lines): 1-2 hours (or ask to split)

2. During Review

Follow a Pattern:

  1. High-Level Review (5-10 minutes)

    • Read PR description and understand intent
    • Skim all changed files to get overview
    • Verify approach makes sense architecturally
    • Check that changes align with stated purpose

  2. Detailed Review (20-45 minutes)

    • Line-by-line code review
    • Check logic, edge cases, error handling
    • Verify tests cover new code
    • Look for security vulnerabilities
    • Ensure code follows team conventions

  3. Testing Considerations (5-10 minutes)

    • Are tests comprehensive?
    • Do tests test the right things?
    • Are edge cases covered?
    • Is test data realistic?

  4. Documentation Check (5 minutes)

    • Are complex sections commented?
    • Is public API documented?
    • Are breaking changes noted?
    • Is README updated if needed?

3. After Reviewing

Provide Clear Decision:

  • ✅ Approve: Code is ready to merge
  • 💬 Comment: Feedback provided, no action required
  • 🔄 Request Changes: Issues must be addressed before merge

Respond to Author:

  • Answer questions promptly
  • Re-review after changes made
  • Approve when issues resolved
  • Thank author for addressing feedback

Review Checklists

General Code Quality

  • [ ] Readability: Code is easy to understand
  • [ ] Naming: Variables and functions have clear, descriptive names
  • [ ] Comments: Complex logic is explained
  • [ ] Formatting: Code follows team style guide
  • [ ] DRY: No unnecessary duplication
  • [ ] SOLID Principles: Code follows SOLID where applicable
  • [ ] Function Size: Functions are focused and < 50 lines
  • [ ] Cyclomatic Complexity: Functions have complexity < 10

Security

  • [ ] Authentication: Protected endpoints require auth
  • [ ] Authorization: Users can only access their own data
  • [ ] Input Sanitization: SQL injection, XSS prevented
  • [ ] Secrets Management: No hardcoded credentials or API keys
  • [ ] Encryption: Sensitive data encrypted at rest and in transit
  • [ ] Rate Limiting: Endpoints protected from abuse

Quick Start Guide

For Reviewers:

  1. Read PR description and understand intent
  2. Check that automated checks pass
  3. Do high-level review (architecture, approach)
  4. Do detailed review (logic, edge cases, tests)
  5. Use conventional comments for clear communication
  6. Provide decision: Approve, Comment, or Request Changes

For Authors:

  1. Write clear PR description
  2. Perform self-review before requesting review
  3. Ensure all automated checks pass
  4. Keep PR focused and reasonably sized (< 400 lines)
  5. Respond to feedback promptly and respectfully
  6. Make requested changes or explain reasoning

CC Built-in Review Commands (2.1.152+)

This playbook is the manual framework; Claude Code ships built-in commands that automate parts of it:

  • /code-review — reviews the current diff for correctness bugs and reuse/simplification/efficiency cleanups.
  • /code-review --fix (CC 2.1.152+) — runs the review then applies the findings to your working tree (a bug-hunting review covering correctness plus reuse/simplification/efficiency).
  • /code-review --comment — posts findings as inline PR comments.
  • /simplify — CC 2.1.154 changed this: it now runs a cleanup-only review (reuse, simplification, efficiency, altitude) and applies the fixes — it no longer invokes the full /code-review --fix bug-hunt. Reach for /simplify for tidy-ups, /code-review --fix for bug-finding-plus-fix.

Use the built-ins for fast diff-scoped passes; use ork:review-pr for the multi-agent, full-PR review (security + testing + architecture).

Skill Version: 2.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-01-08 Maintained by: OrchestKit

Related Skills

  • ork:architecture-patterns - Enforce testing and architectural best practices during code review
  • ork:security-patterns - Auth, input validation, and OWASP patterns to complement manual review
  • ork:testing-unit - Unit testing patterns to verify during review

Rules

Each category has individual rule files in rules/ loaded on-demand:

| Category | Rule | Impact | Key Pattern | |----------|------|--------|-------------| | TypeScript Quality | rules/typescript-quality.md | HIGH | No any, Zod validation, exhaustive switches, React 19 | | Python Quality | rules/python-quality.md | HIGH | Pydantic v2, ruff, mypy strict, async timeouts | | Security Baseline | rules/security-baseline.md | CRITICAL | No secrets, auth on endpoints, input validation | | Linting | rules/linting-biome-setup.md | HIGH | Biome setup, ESLint migration, gradual adoption | | Linting | rules/linting-biome-rules.md | HIGH | Biome config, type-aware rules, CI integration |

Total: 5 rules across 4 categories

Available Scripts

  • scripts/review-pr.md - Dynamic PR review with auto-fetched GitHub data

    • Auto-fetches: PR title, author, state, changed files, diff stats, comments count
    • Usage: /ork:review-pr [PR-number]
    • Requires: GitHub CLI (gh)
    • Uses $ARGUMENTS and !command for live PR data

  • assets/pr-template.md - PR description template

There is deliberately no review-report template here; ork:review-pr owns that output shape. See references/ork-delta.md.