# Run Structured Code Reviews

Large reviews can miss security, performance, and documentation issues. This skill guides Claude, Codex, and Claude Code through a staged multi-agent review workflow.

## Install

```bash
npx skillstore add dnyoussef/sop-code-review
```

## Metadata

- Status: approved
- Slug: dnyoussef-sop-code-review
- Skillstore revision: r1
- Version status: missing
- Tree hash: 6200623d2b1587c3c6021e302b0a25a094d1cf805c6fb7bb78b99bceeafd579e
- Author: DNYoussef
- GitHub username: DNYoussef
- License: MIT
- Repository: https://github.com/DNYoussef/ai-chrome-extension/tree/main/.claude/skills/sop-code-review
- Ref: c579efd02184f1128d6741d16e6c8d951d7d4208
- Supported tools: Claude, Codex, Claude Code
- Audit status: complete
- Agent install advisory: allowed
- Manual install advisory: allowed
- Artifact signature: available
- Audit attestation: unavailable
- Human verification: not\_verified
- Risk factors: external\_commands
- Quality score: 77
- Quality tier: bronze
- Public page: https://skillstore.pages.dev/skills/dnyoussef-sop-code-review
- Manifest: https://skillstore.pages.dev/api/skills/dnyoussef-sop-code-review/manifest

## Capabilities

- Defines a four-phase review timeline for automated checks, specialist reviews, integration review, and final approval.
- Coordinates linting, tests, coverage, and build validation as first-pass quality gates.
- Assigns focused review prompts for code quality, security, performance, architecture, and documentation.
- Aggregates specialist feedback into blocking issues, high-priority suggestions, and optional improvements.
- Guides final PR decisions for approval, change requests, or rejection.

## Use Cases

- Standardize Pull Request Reviews: Apply the same quality, test, security, and approval gates to every important PR.
- Add Specialist Review Coverage: Split review work across focused quality, security, performance, architecture, and documentation checks.
- Prepare Release-Critical Changes: Assess deployment impact, rollback readiness, user impact, and merge risk before release.

## Prompt Templates

### Review a Pull Request

```
Use sop-code-review to review PR [number] in [repository]. Focus on automated checks, security, performance, architecture, and documentation.
```

### Run Specialist Reviews

```
Apply sop-code-review to these changes: [summary]. Produce separate quality, security, performance, architecture, and documentation findings.
```

### Assess Release Risk

```
Use sop-code-review for PR [number]. Include deployment impact, rollback readiness, user impact, and feature flag recommendations.
```

### Coordinate a Full Review Program

```
Use sop-code-review across [repository] for [release name]. Track phase status, blocking issues, ownership, and final merge decisions.
```

## Limitations

- It is a workflow prompt, not a standalone CI runner or scanner.
- It depends on available agent and MCP tooling in the user environment.
- It does not provide language-specific commands or repository-specific policies.
- Review timing and coverage targets may need adjustment for each team.

## Best Practices

- Run the workflow after the PR has a clear description and test plan.
- Keep blocking findings tied to specific risks and required fixes.
- Tune coverage, timing, and approval gates to match repository standards.

## Anti Patterns

- Using the workflow as a substitute for human approval on sensitive changes.
- Treating every suggestion as a blocker without severity triage.
- Running tests or builds against untrusted code without environment controls.

## Security Audit

- Audited at: 2026-07-05T13:17:28.47\+00:00
- Summary: All static matches were false positives caused by Markdown JavaScript code fences, template literal delimiters, or ordinary review checklist wording. No prompt injection, exfiltration intent, network abuse, or real shell or Ruby execution was found in SKILL.md.

## Stats

- Views: 261
- Downloads: 8
- Favorites: 0
- Popularity score: 0