How to use
- Copy the installation command and review the source package before installing it in your own agent environment.
- Check the source document for required tools, credentials and supported hosts.
- Describe your input and desired deliverable; review the output against the source material.
npx skills add https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-codeBefore you start
- Installation does not include a model subscription, API allowance or permission to access your files.
- Repository stars and installation counts describe activity, not an independent quality or security test.
Rendered from the source repository. Headings, examples, code, tables, links, and referenced images are preserved.
Review Code (internal)
Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits, never refactors.
Scope
The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.
Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)
✓ No logic errors on the changed paths (trace each modified function's inputs → outputs, including boundary values) ✓ Every error path is handled — no swallowed exceptions, no empty catch, no silently-ignored return codes ✓ No duplicated logic (a changed block does not re-implement an existing helper — cite the existing one if it does) ✓ No dead code introduced (unused functions, params, imports, unreachable branches) ✓ No leftover TODO/FIXME/HACK markers in the diff ✓ Naming and file conventions match the project's docs (read them first; cite the convention violated) ✓ No new abstraction beyond what the SPEC requires (an interface/base class with one implementation is a finding) ✓ No new dependency not justified in the SPEC ✓ Simplification: any changed block that can lose lines without losing behavior (cite before/after) ✓ Reference trace: every changed symbol/API got a reference search — un-updated callers are findings ✓ Edge cases the SPEC's dev scenarios name are actually handled in code, not just in tests
Materiality bar
Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence. Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios. An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed change — never pad the table.
Return exactly
REVIEW CODE — scope: <scope>
| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what> | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |
Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Decision: PASS | FAILFAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.
Done when
- Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output)
or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
- The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and
no code was changed.
