# Code Reviewing

> Helps Codex review code changes and find real problems before they spread. Use it after implementation, during PR review, or whenever you want a structured quality check for bugs, regressions, missing tests, bad assumptions, or cross-file mismatches. Trigger on requests like: "сделай ревью", "review this code", "check the diff", "quality pass", "проверь изменения".

- Skill: `aggel008/code-reviewing` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add aggel008/code-reviewing`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/aggel008/code-reviewing/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: aggel008 (https://skillmd.com/u/aggel008)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/aggel008/code-reviewing

---


# Code Reviewing

This skill is for code review in plain practical terms: find what can break, what is weak, and what still needs proof.

Use it when:

- code was just written
- you want a pre-merge review
- you suspect hidden regressions
- you need more than “looks fine”

Main benefit:

- catches real defects early
- pushes review toward evidence, not taste
- highlights missing tests and invalid integrations

## Primary Output

Findings first.

Each finding should include:

- severity
- file
- line
- issue
- impact
- recommended fix

## Review Dimensions

Check what matters for the changed area:

- correctness
- cross-file consistency
- error handling
- test coverage and test quality
- security boundaries
- maintainability
- performance only when clearly relevant

For cross-file verification rules, read [cross-file-checks.md](references/cross-file-checks.md).

## Rules

- Prioritize real bugs and regressions over style nits.
- Verify imports, function signatures, and called APIs against source.
- If tests are missing for meaningful logic, call that out.
- If no findings exist, say so explicitly and mention residual risk or testing gaps.
- Do not inflate severity for trivial style issues.

## Severity Guidance

- `critical`: likely broken behavior, security issue, data loss risk, invalid cross-file usage
- `major`: strong regression risk, missing important validation, meaningful maintainability issue
- `minor`: worthwhile improvement but not likely to break behavior

## Output Shape

Default response order:

1. findings
2. open questions or assumptions
3. brief summary