
code-review-assistant
by AsiaOstrich
Universal, language-agnostic development standards for software projects. Includes coding standards, git workflows, testing guidelines, documentation structure, and AI collaboration rules.
SKILL.md
name: code-review-assistant description: | Systematic code review checklist and pre-commit quality gates for PRs. Use when: reviewing pull requests, checking code quality, before committing code. Keywords: review, PR, pull request, checklist, quality, commit, 審查, 檢查, 簽入.
Code Review Assistant
Language: English | 繁體中文
Version: 1.0.0 Last Updated: 2025-12-24 Applicability: Claude Code Skills
Purpose
This skill provides systematic checklists for code review and pre-commit verification.
Quick Reference
Comment Prefixes
| Prefix | Meaning | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| ❗ BLOCKING | Must fix before merge | 🔴 Required |
| ⚠️ IMPORTANT | Should fix, but not blocking | 🟡 Recommended |
| 💡 SUGGESTION | Nice-to-have improvement | 🟢 Optional |
| ❓ QUESTION | Need clarification | 🔵 Discuss |
| 📝 NOTE | Informational, no action | ⚪ Informational |
Review Checklist Categories
- Functionality - Does it work?
- Design - Right architecture?
- Quality - Clean code?
- Readability - Easy to understand?
- Tests - Adequate coverage?
- Security - No vulnerabilities?
- Performance - Efficient?
- Errors - Properly handled?
- Docs - Updated?
- Dependencies - Necessary?
Pre-Commit Checklist
- Build succeeds (zero errors, zero warnings)
- All tests pass
- Code follows project standards
- No security vulnerabilities
- Documentation updated
- Branch synced with target
Detailed Guidelines
For complete standards, see:
AI-Optimized Format (Token-Efficient)
For AI assistants, use the YAML format file for reduced token usage:
- Base standard:
ai/standards/code-review.ai.yaml
Example Review Comments
❗ BLOCKING: Potential SQL injection vulnerability here.
Please use parameterized queries instead of string concatenation.
⚠️ IMPORTANT: This method is doing too much (120 lines).
Consider extracting validation logic to a separate method.
💡 SUGGESTION: Consider using a Map here instead of an array for O(1) lookup.
❓ QUESTION: Why are we using setTimeout here instead of async/await?
📝 NOTE: This is a clever solution! Nice use of reduce here.
Core Principles
- Be Respectful - Review code, not the person
- Be Thorough - Check functionality, not just syntax
- Be Timely - Review within 24 hours
- Be Clear - Explain WHY, not just WHAT
Checkin Quality Gates (YAML Compressed)
# === MANDATORY CHECKLIST ===
build:
- code_compiles: "zero errors, zero warnings"
- dependencies: "all installed, versions locked"
verify: "run build locally, exit code 0"
test:
- existing_pass: "100% pass rate (unit/integration/e2e)"
- new_code_tested: "features→tests, bugfix→regression"
- coverage: "not decreased, critical paths tested"
verify: "run all suites, review coverage report"
quality:
- standards: "naming, formatting, comments"
- no_smells: "methods≤50 lines, nesting≤3, complexity≤10, no duplication"
- security: "no hardcoded secrets, no SQLi, no XSS, no insecure deps"
verify: "run linter, static analysis, security scanner"
docs:
- api_docs: "public APIs documented"
- readme: "updated if needed"
- changelog: "user-facing changes → [Unreleased]"
workflow:
- branch_naming: "feature/, fix/, docs/, chore/"
- commit_message: "conventional commits format"
- synced: "merged/rebased with target branch"
# === NEVER COMMIT WHEN ===
blockers:
- "Build has errors"
- "Tests failing"
- "Feature incomplete (would break functionality)"
- "Contains WIP/TODO in critical logic"
- "Contains debugging code (console.log, print)"
- "Contains commented-out code blocks"
# === COMMIT TIMING ===
good_times:
- "Completed functional unit"
- "Specific bug fixed with regression test"
- "Independent refactor (all tests pass)"
- "Runnable state"
bad_times:
- "Build failures"
- "Test failures"
- "Incomplete features"
- "Experimental code with TODOs"
# === GRANULARITY ===
ideal_size:
files: "1-10 (split if >10)"
lines: "50-300"
scope: "single concern"
split_principle:
combine: ["feature + its tests", "tightly related multi-file"]
separate: ["Feature A + Feature B", "refactor + new feature", "bugfix + incidental refactor"]
Configuration Detection
This skill supports project-specific configuration.
Detection Order
- Check
CONTRIBUTING.mdfor "Disabled Skills" section- If this skill is listed, it is disabled for this project
- Check
CONTRIBUTING.mdfor "Code Review Language" section - If not found, default to English
First-Time Setup
If no configuration found and context is unclear:
- Ask the user: "This project hasn't configured code review language. Which option would you like? (English / 中文)"
- After user selection, suggest documenting in
CONTRIBUTING.md:
## Code Review Language
This project uses **[chosen option]** for code review comments.
<!-- Options: English | 中文 -->
Configuration Example
In project's CONTRIBUTING.md:
## Code Review Language
This project uses **English** for code review comments.
<!-- Options: English | 中文 -->
### Comment Prefixes
BLOCKING, IMPORTANT, SUGGESTION, QUESTION, NOTE
Related Standards
Version History
| Version | Date | Changes |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0.0 | 2025-12-24 | Added: Standard sections (Purpose, Related Standards, Version History, License) |
License
This skill is released under CC BY 4.0.
Source: universal-dev-standards
Score
Total Score
Based on repository quality metrics
SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている
ライセンスが設定されている
100文字以上の説明がある
GitHub Stars 100以上
1ヶ月以内に更新
10回以上フォークされている
オープンIssueが50未満
プログラミング言語が設定されている
1つ以上のタグが設定されている
Reviews
Reviews coming soon


