Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing re
The skill file stays in the publisher's repository.
Paste the copied command in a terminal. It installs this SKILL.md into that agent.
npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill code-review-excellence -a cursor -y
Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.
Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.
Transform code reviews from gatekeeping to knowledge sharing through constructive feedback, systematic analysis, and collaborative improvement.
Goals of Code Review:
Not the Goals:
Good Feedback is:
❌ Bad: "This is wrong."
✅ Good: "This could cause a race condition when multiple users
access simultaneously. Consider using a mutex here."
❌ Bad: "Why didn't you use X pattern?"
✅ Good: "Have you considered the Repository pattern? It would
make this easier to test. Here's an example: [link]"
❌ Bad: "Rename this variable."
✅ Good: "[nit] Consider `userCount` instead of `uc` for
clarity. Not blocking if you prefer to keep it."
What to Review:
What Not to Review Manually:
Before diving into code, understand:
1. Read PR description and linked issue
2. Check PR size (>400 lines? Ask to split)
3. Review CI/CD status (tests passing?)
4. Understand the business requirement
5. Note any relevant architectural decisions
1. **Architecture & Design**
- Does the solution fit the problem?
- Are there simpler approaches?
- Is it consistent with existing patterns?
- Will it scale?
2. **File Organization**
- Are new files in the right places?
- Is code grouped logically?
- Are there duplicate files?
3. **Testing Strategy**
- Are there tests?
- Do tests cover edge cases?
- Are tests readable?
For each file:
1. **Logic & Correctness**
- Edge cases handled?
- Off-by-one errors?
- Null/undefined checks?
- Race conditions?
2. **Security**
- Input validation?
- SQL injection risks?
- XSS vulnerabilities?
- Sensitive data exposure?
3. **Performance**
- N+1 queries?
- Unnecessary loops?
- Memory leaks?
- Blocking operations?
4. **Maintainability**
- Clear variable names?
- Functions doing one thing?
- Complex code commented?
- Magic numbers extracted?
1. Summarize key concerns
2. Highlight what you liked
3. Make clear decision:
- ✅ Approve
- 💬 Comment (minor suggestions)
- 🔄 Request Changes (must address)
4. Offer to pair if complex
Before writing review feedback, read references/review-techniques.md for checklists, question framing, collaboration, and severity techniques.
Before language-specific, architectural, test-quality, or security review, read references/review-patterns.md for review patterns and checklists.
Traditional: Praise + Criticism + Praise (feels fake)
Better: Context + Specific Issue + Helpful Solution
Example:
"I noticed the payment processing logic is inline in the
controller. This makes it harder to test and reuse.
[Specific Issue]
The calculateTotal() function mixes tax calculation,
discount logic, and database queries, making it difficult
to unit test and reason about.
[Helpful Solution]
Could we extract this into a PaymentService class? That
would make it testable and reusable. I can pair with you
on this if helpful."
When author disagrees with your feedback:
1. **Seek to Understand**
"Help me understand your approach. What led you to
choose this pattern?"
2. **Acknowledge Valid Points**
"That's a good point about X. I hadn't considered that."
3. **Provide Data**
"I'm concerned about performance. Can we add a benchmark
to validate the approach?"
4. **Escalate if Needed**
"Let's get [architect/senior dev] to weigh in on this."
5. **Know When to Let Go**
If it's working and not a critical issue, approve it.
Perfection is the enemy of progress.
## Summary
[Brief overview of what was reviewed]
## Strengths
- [What was done well]
- [Good patterns or approaches]
## Required Changes
🔴 [Blocking issue 1]
🔴 [Blocking issue 2]
## Suggestions
💡 [Improvement 1]
💡 [Improvement 2]
## Questions
❓ [Clarification needed on X]
❓ [Alternative approach consideration]
## Verdict
✅ Approve after addressing required changes