# Standardize Code Reviews

Inconsistent reviews slow teams and make feedback harder to act on. This skill provides checklists, comment formats, and templates for clear review workflows.

## Install

```bash
npx skillstore add ai agent hub/ariegoldkin-code-review-playbook
```

## Metadata

- - Slug: ariegoldkin-code-review-playbook
- - Version: 1.0.0
- - Author: AI Agent Hub
- - GitHub username: ArieGoldkin
- - License: MIT
- - Repository: https://github.com/ArieGoldkin/ai-agent-hub/tree/main/skills/code-review-playbook
- - Ref: main
- - Supported tools: Claude, Codex, Claude Code
- - Risk level: medium
- - Quality score: 71
- - Public page: https://skillstore.pages.dev/skills/ariegoldkin-code-review-playbook
- - Manifest: https://skillstore.pages.dev/api/skills/ariegoldkin-code-review-playbook/manifest

## Capabilities

- Provides a step-by-step code review process for reviewers and authors.
- Defines conventional comment labels for severity and intent.
- Includes broad checklists for quality, testing, security, APIs, databases, and deployment.
- Supplies pull request and review feedback templates for consistent documentation.
- Gives examples for constructive feedback, review decisions, and follow-up actions.

## Use Cases

- Review Pull Requests Consistently: Use the checklist and comment labels to review changes with clear severity and actionable feedback.
- Prepare Changes Before Review: Run a self-review with the pull request template before asking teammates for feedback.
- Define Team Review Standards: Adopt the templates and process guidance as a baseline for team review norms.

## Prompt Templates

### Review a Small Pull Request

```
Use the code-review-playbook to review this small pull request. Focus on correctness, tests, and clear conventional comments.
```

### Prepare a PR Description

```
Use the pull request template from the code-review-playbook to help me prepare a complete PR description and testing notes.
```

### Triage Review Feedback

```
Use the review feedback patterns to classify these comments as blocking, non-blocking, questions, or nitpicks.
```

### Design a Team Review Standard

```
Use the code-review-playbook to create a team review policy with severity labels, reviewer expectations, and merge criteria.
```

## Limitations

- Does not execute tests, linters, or security scanners by itself.
- Does not replace human judgment for architecture or product tradeoffs.
- Examples may need adaptation to team-specific tools and review policies.
- LLM automation snippets require additional prompt-injection safeguards before production use.

## Best Practices

- Review the pull request description and tests before reading line-by-line changes.
- Use conventional labels to make severity and merge impact clear.
- Separate must-fix defects from preferences and follow-up improvements.

## Anti Patterns

- Blocking a merge for subjective style preferences that automation can handle.
- Leaving vague feedback without explaining the impact or a possible fix.
- Approving large or risky changes without checking tests, security, and rollout impact.

## Security Audit

- - Safe to publish: true
- - Audited at: 2026-06-28T09:42:08.23\+00:00
- - Summary: Static command, crypto, reconnaissance, and network flags were reviewed as Markdown examples, checklist labels, or documentation links rather than executable behavior. No malicious intent, prompt-injection text, credential exfiltration, or runnable command execution was found. The main concern is that copyable LLM review automation examples interpolate untrusted diffs and code into prompts without prompt-injection guidance.

## Stats

- - Views: 326
- - Downloads: 5
- - Favorites: 0
- - Popularity score: 0