--- name: code-reviewing-specialist-4a32eee26a95 description: > This skill should be used when the user asks to "review this code", "do a code review", "review this pull request", "check this PR", "evaluate code changes", "review for design and complexity", "assess code readiness for merge", "review this diff", or "give feedback on this code". It performs comprehensive code review covering design, functionality, complexity, tests, naming, comments, style, and documentation using Google's 8-dimension framework with risk-tiered PR assessment. version: 1.0.0 --- # Code Reviewing Specialist ## Purpose This skill performs comprehensive, general-purpose code review across the broadest possible scope. It applies Google's 8-dimension framework — design, functionality, complexity, tests, naming, comments, style, and documentation — holistically to every code change. It is distinct from the specialized skills (bug-review targets correctness defects, security-review targets exploitability, quality-review targets long-term maintainability) because it evaluates all dimensions together and provides a unified merge recommendation. ## The 8 Review Dimensions Evaluate every code change against these eight dimensions, adapted from Google's publicly shared engineering practices. **Design.** Assess whether the change belongs in this location within the codebase. Evaluate the overall approach: is the architecture sound? Are the right abstractions used? Does the change respect separation of concerns and existing module boundaries? Design is the highest-impact dimension — a wrong design decision affects everything downstream. **Functionality.** Verify that the code does what the developer intended for all inputs, not just the happy path. Consider edge cases the author may not have anticipated: empty collections, null inputs, concurrent access, network failures, malformed data. Think about how end users will actually interact with the change. **Complexity.** Determine whether the code can be understood quickly by future readers. "Too complex" means a reader cannot grasp the logic in a single pass. Flag over-engineering (premature abstractions, unnecessary generics, speculative configurability), clever tricks that sacrifice readability, and functions doing too many things. **Tests.** Evaluate test design, not just test existence. Tests must be correct (testing the right behavior), well-designed (clear arrange/act/assert structure), meaningful (assertions that validate actual behavior and would fail on regression), and appropriately scoped (unit vs integration vs end-to-end). Tests do not test themselves — examine whether they actually exercise the changed code paths. **Naming.** Verify that names are clear, descriptive, and consistent with the project's conventions. Name length should be proportional to scope: short names for tight scopes, descriptive names for broader scopes. Avoid abbreviations that require domain knowledge to decode. Functions should use verb-noun patterns; variables should use noun patterns. **Comments.** Assess whether comments explain "why" rather than "what." Good comments capture intent, constraints, trade-offs, and non-obvious decisions. Bad comments restate the code, become stale quickly, or apologize for complexity instead of simplifying it. Flag TODOs without tracking information. **Style.** Defer to the project's style guide as the absolute authority on style questions. Do not debate personal preferences during review — if the style guide permits it, accept it. If the project lacks a formal style guide, apply the dominant convention already established in the codebase. Style disagreements are the least productive use of reviewer time. **Documentation.** Check whether READMEs, API docs, inline documentation, changelog entries, and migration guides are updated to reflect the change. If the change alters public APIs or user-facing behavior, documentation updates are mandatory, not optional. Consult `references/review-dimensions.md` for detailed guidance, common mistakes, and example review comments for each dimension. ## PR Assessment Protocol Before beginning line-by-line review, assess the PR at the structural level. **Size Check.** Target 200–400 lines of code per PR. PRs under 100 lines review fastest and most thoroughly. PRs exceeding 400 lines should trigger a size warning. PRs exceeding 1,000 lines MUST be split — recommend logical splitting strategies (by layer, by feature, by refactor-then-feature). Teams with PRs averaging 50 lines ship 40% more code than teams exceeding 200 lines. For large features, recommend stacked PRs. Record the size classification in the report (Small <100, Medium 100-400, Large 400-1000, Oversized >1000). **Risk Tier Assignment.** Classify the change as Low, Medium, or High risk: - **Low:** Configuration changes, documentation, cosmetic fixes, test-only changes - **Medium:** Business logic modifications, new features in existing modules, dependency updates - **High:** Authentication/authorization changes, payment/financial logic, cryptographic operations, CI/CD pipeline modifications, infrastructure changes, new external dependencies **Ship/Show/Ask Classification.** Determine the review need: - **Ship** — Trivial changes (typo fixes, formatting) that can merge without review - **Show** — Changes that benefit from awareness but should not block on review feedback - **Ask** — Complex changes requiring blocking review and explicit approval **Reviewer Routing.** Determine whether the change touches CODEOWNERS-protected areas requiring specialized sign-off. For High-risk changes, require an additional reviewer with domain expertise (security specialist for auth code, database expert for schema changes). Consult `references/pr-workflow.md` for the complete risk-tiered PR lifecycle, merge queue strategies, and stacked PR patterns. ## Review Execution Workflow Follow these steps in order for each code review. **Step 1: Read the PR Description.** Understand the intent before reading code. Review the linked issue or requirement. Verify the PR description explains what changed and why. **Step 2: AI-Generated Code Detection.** Assess whether the code appears to be AI-generated. Indicators include: uniform variable naming patterns, overly verbose comments restating the code, missing edge case handling, generic error messages, and suspiciously complete but shallow implementations. If AI generation is suspected, apply heightened scrutiny to: edge case handling, error path completeness, business logic correctness, and whether the code truly fits the project's patterns rather than being generic boilerplate. Document AI-generation suspicion in the report. **Step 3: Assess Design at the Architectural Level.** Start with the highest-impact dimension. Evaluate whether the approach is fundamentally sound before examining implementation details. If the design is wrong, file-level feedback is wasted effort. **Step 4: Walk Through the Code File by File.** Read the diff systematically. For large PRs, start with the files most central to the change (usually identified in the PR description), then move to supporting files. **Step 5: Apply the 8 Dimensions Checklist.** For each significant code section, evaluate against all 8 dimensions. Record findings as they arise — do not rely on memory for a second pass. **Step 6: Check CI Gate Results.** Review lint, test, SAST, and SCA results from the CI pipeline. Do not duplicate work that automation has already performed. If CI gates passed, focus human attention on design, logic, and architecture — not formatting. **Step 7: Formulate Feedback.** Organize findings by severity and dimension. Apply the feedback conventions described below. ## Feedback Conventions Effective review feedback is constructive, prioritized, and actionable. **Framing.** Use "we" instead of "you" to frame suggestions collaboratively. "We might want to handle the null case here" is more constructive than "You forgot to handle null." For new developers, apply the sandwich method: suggestion between two genuine compliments. **Severity Prefixes.** Mark each comment with its blocking level: - **Blocking:** Must be addressed before merge. Use sparingly — only for correctness, security, or design issues. - **Nit:** Non-blocking polish suggestion. The author may address or ignore without discussion. - **Optional:** Improvement that the author should consider but is explicitly not required. - **Question:** Seeking understanding, not requesting a change. Indicates the reviewer needs clarification. **Focus Human Attention.** Research shows only ~15% of code review comments address real defects — the bulk target style and formatting issues that automated linters should handle. Reserve human review comments for logic, security, architecture, and design. Automated tools should handle style, formatting, and known vulnerability patterns. **Handling Disagreements.** If the author and reviewer disagree on a non-blocking issue, the author's judgment prevails. For blocking issues, escalate to a third reviewer or team lead rather than engaging in prolonged debate. Consult `references/feedback-guide.md` for detailed examples, comment transformations (bad to good), and time-boxing guidance. ## The Improvement Principle Google's guiding principle for code review: "A CL that improves the overall code health of the system should not be delayed for days because it isn't perfect." Balance thoroughness with velocity. Approve with minor nits rather than blocking on cosmetics. Provide the first review response within one business day to prevent systemic throughput collapse. Time-box individual review sessions to 60–90 minutes maximum — reviewer effectiveness degrades sharply after that point. This skill is language-agnostic and applies to any programming language, framework, or technology stack. ## Output Format Structure the code review report as follows: ``` ## Code Review Report ### Summary - **Verdict:** Approve | Approve with Nits | Request Changes - **Risk Tier:** Low | Medium | High - **PR Size:** [LOC changed] across [file count] files - **Blocking Items:** [count] - **Non-Blocking Items:** [count] ### Findings by Dimension #### Design - [findings or "No issues identified"] #### Functionality - [findings] #### Complexity - [findings] #### Tests - [findings] #### Naming - [findings] #### Comments - [findings] #### Style - [findings] #### Documentation - [findings] ### Verdict Rationale [Brief explanation of the overall assessment and any conditions for approval] ``` Append the following structured summary block at the end of every report for pipeline consumption: ``` --- ## Pipeline Summary (Machine-Readable) phase_id: 2 skill: code-review status: COMPLETE risk_assessment: [High / Medium / Low] finding_count: blocking: [n] nit: [n] optional: [n] question: [n] checklist_coverage: [8/8 dimensions assessed] verdict: [Approve / Approve with Nits / Request Changes] key_concerns: [top 3 blocking items, one line each] cross_references: [file:line pairs flagged for cross-skill attention] --- ``` ## Pipeline Integration **When invoked by code-chief (pipeline mode):** - Receive delegation with review target scope, Phase 1 context, and technology stack - Execute the full 8-dimension review workflow - Submit the completed report to code-chief (not directly to gatekeeper-code) - Include the structured pipeline summary block at the end of the report - Code-chief owns the gatekeeper-code validation cycle in pipeline mode **When invoked standalone:** - Execute the full 8-dimension review workflow independently - Submit the completed report to `gatekeeper-code` for adversarial validation - If no `gatekeeper-code` skill is available, self-validate by confirming each of the 8 dimensions was assessed and the risk tier assignment is justified by the actual change scope In both modes, the gatekeeper-code will challenge whether all dimensions were thoroughly assessed, whether the risk tier matches the actual change scope, and whether blocking items were correctly identified or missed. ## Additional Resources ### Reference Files For detailed review guidance, PR workflows, and feedback conventions, consult: - **`references/review-dimensions.md`** — Detailed guidance for each of Google's 8 review dimensions, with questions to ask, common mistakes, and example review comments per dimension - **`references/pr-workflow.md`** — Complete risk-tiered PR lifecycle from pre-commit through post-merge, Ship/Show/Ask model with examples, stacked PR strategies, merge queues (Graphite, Aviator, GitHub native), and reviewer assignment patterns - **`references/feedback-guide.md`** — Constructive feedback conventions with before/after examples, severity prefix usage, handling disagreements, sandwich method for juniors, and time-boxing guidance --- Source attribution: TykoDev Original project: https://github.com/TykoDev/skill-sets/blob/701ad899575ee0e625a8e5415e271411c895972f/Code-Check_SkillSet/code-review/SKILL.md License: Apache-2.0 License information: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Original upstream instructions; downloaded from Mega AI Hub. ## Upstream license notice Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004 http://www.apache.org/licenses/ TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION 1. Definitions. "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document. "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by the copyright owner that is granting the License. "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity. "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions granted by this License. "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files. "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical transformation or translation of a Source form, including but not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation, and conversions to other media types. "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the Appendix below). "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof. "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution." "Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and subsequently incorporated within the Work. 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. 4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions: (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License. You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License. 5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions. 6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file. 7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License. 8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity, or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability. END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work. To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) The text should be enclosed in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a file or class name and description of purpose be included on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives. Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. # Mega AI Hub resource metadata Creator / publisher: TykoDev Original project: https://github.com/TykoDev/skill-sets/blob/701ad899575ee0e625a8e5415e271411c895972f/Code-Check_SkillSet/code-review/SKILL.md Attribution basis: Source repository record Fields of work: Development & Engineering, Product Management Roles: Backend Developer, Frontend Developer, Full-Stack Developer, QA / Test Engineer, Technical Product Manager Specialties: API, Database, Design, DevOps, Word Documents, Frontend, Git, Playwright, Stripe, Testing Tools: Tool not specified Country applicability: Country not specified Classification basis: Source catalog labels Instruction SHA-256: dd362f8f39c4bbf17fba356bc57be7bc3570ef188764f6d880d95505650fa52f