How do I install the Aico Code Review skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add aibot88/aico-code-review in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Aico Code Review safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Independent scanners report: SkillSpector: PASS, Skill Scanner: PASS. Capability flags: docs only. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Aico Code Review?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Aico Code Review free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Aico Code Review?

aibot88 (@aibot88) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Aico Code Review by aibot88 — Agent Skill

Name: Aico Code Review
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: aibot88

Aico Code Review

Request structured code review to catch correctness, security, performance, and readability issues. Reviews should happen early and often. Use this skill when: - Completing a task and need quality check - After major feature implementation - Before merging to main branch - When stuck and need fresh perspective on code - User asks for "code review", "review my code", "check my code" - Subagent-driven workflow needs spec compliance or quality review Review categories: Correctness, Tests, Security, Performance, Readability, Error Handling Severity levels: Critical (fix now), Important (fix before proceeding), Minor (note for later)

aibot88 Updated Sep 9, 2026 3 repo stars

File contents

Code Review

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

After completing each task
After implementing major feature
Before merge to main

Optional:

When stuck (fresh perspective)
Before refactoring
After fixing complex bug

Review Checklist

Category	Check
Correctness	Does it do what it should?
Tests	Are there tests? Do they pass?
Security	Any vulnerabilities?
Performance	Any obvious bottlenecks?
Readability	Is code clear and maintainable?
Error Handling	Are errors handled properly?

Issue Severity

Severity	Action
Critical	Fix immediately, blocks progress
Important	Fix before proceeding
Minor	Note for later, can proceed

Review Output Template

## Code Review: [Feature/Task Name]

### Files Modified

- `path/to/file.ts` - [what changed]

### Issues

**Critical:**

- [ ] [Issue description]

**Important:**

- [ ] [Issue description]

**Minor:**

- [ ] [Issue description]

### Assessment

- [ ] Ready to proceed
- [ ] Needs fixes (see issues above)

Key Rules

ALWAYS review after each task completion
MUST fix Critical issues immediately
MUST fix Important issues before proceeding
Minor issues can be noted for later
If reviewer is wrong, push back with technical reasoning

Common Mistakes

❌ Skip review because "it's simple" → ✅ Review everything
❌ Ignore Critical issues → ✅ Fix immediately
❌ Proceed with Important issues → ✅ Fix first

---name: aico-code-reviewdescription: Request structured code review to catch correctness, security, performance, and readability issues. Reviews should happen early and often. Use this skill when: - Completing a task and need quality check - After major feature implementation - Before merging to main branch - When stuck and need fresh perspective on code - User asks for "code review", "review my code", "check my code" - Subagent-driven workflow needs spec compliance or quality review Review categories: Correctness, Tests, Security, Performance, Readability, Error Handling Severity levels: Critical (fix now), Important (fix before proceeding), Minor (note for later)--- # Code Review ## When to Request Review **Mandatory:** - After completing each task - After implementing major feature - Before merge to main **Optional:** - When stuck (fresh perspective) - Before refactoring - After fixing complex bug ## Review Checklist | Category | Check | | -------------- | ------------------------------- | | Correctness | Does it do what it should? | | Tests | Are there tests? Do they pass? | | Security | Any vulnerabilities? | | Performance | Any obvious bottlenecks? | | Readability | Is code clear and maintainable? | | Error Handling | Are errors handled properly? | ## Issue Severity | Severity | Action | | ------------- | -------------------------------- | | **Critical** | Fix immediately, blocks progress | | **Important** | Fix before proceeding | | **Minor** | Note for later, can proceed | ## Review Output Template ```markdown ## Code Review: [Feature/Task Name] ### Files Modified - `path/to/file.ts` - [what changed] ### Issues **Critical:** - [ ] [Issue description] **Important:** - [ ] [Issue description] **Minor:** - [ ] [Issue description] ### Assessment - [ ] Ready to proceed - [ ] Needs fixes (see issues above) ``` ## Key Rules - ALWAYS review after each task completion - MUST fix Critical issues immediately - MUST fix Important issues before proceeding - Minor issues can be noted for later - If reviewer is wrong, push back with technical reasoning ## Common Mistakes - ❌ Skip review because "it's simple" → ✅ Review everything - ❌ Ignore Critical issues → ✅ Fix immediately - ❌ Proceed with Important issues → ✅ Fix first

Frequently asked questions