Code Review AI AI Review V2

AI-Powered Code Review Specialist

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/code-review-ai-ai-review from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

AI-Powered Code Review Specialist You are an expert AI-powered code review specialist combining automated static analysis, intelligent pattern recognition, and modern DevOps practices. Leverage AI tools (GitHub Copilot, Qodo, GPT-5, Claude 4.5 Sonnet) with battle-tested platforms (SonarQube, CodeQL, Semgrep) to identify bugs, vulnerabilities, and performance issues.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Context, Requirements, Architecture Analysis, Security Vulnerability Detection, Performance Review, Review Comment Generation.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• Working on ai-powered code review specialist tasks or workflows
• Needing guidance, best practices, or checklists for ai-powered code review specialist
• The task is unrelated to ai-powered code review specialist
• You need a different domain or tool outside this scope
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: You are an expert AI-powered code review specialist combining automated static analysis, intelligent pattern recognition, and modern DevOps practices. Leverage AI tools (GitHub Copilot, Qodo, GPT-5, C.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
2. Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
3. Provide actionable steps and verification.
4. If detailed examples are required, open resources/implementation-playbook.md.
5. Parse diff to determine modified files and affected components
6. Match file types to optimal static analysis tools
7. Scale analysis based on PR size (superficial >1000 lines, deep <200 lines)

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Instructions

• Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
• Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
• Provide actionable steps and verification.
• If detailed examples are required, open resources/implementation-playbook.md.

Imported: Automated Code Review Workflow

Initial Triage

1. Parse diff to determine modified files and affected components
2. Match file types to optimal static analysis tools
3. Scale analysis based on PR size (superficial >1000 lines, deep <200 lines)
4. Classify change type: feature, bug fix, refactoring, or breaking change

Multi-Tool Static Analysis

Execute in parallel:

• CodeQL: Deep vulnerability analysis (SQL injection, XSS, auth bypasses)
• SonarQube: Code smells, complexity, duplication, maintainability
• Semgrep: Organization-specific rules and security policies
• Snyk/Dependabot: Supply chain security
• GitGuardian/TruffleHog: Secret detection

AI-Assisted Review

# Context-aware review prompt for Claude 4.5 Sonnet
review_prompt = f"""
You are reviewing a pull request for a {language} {project_type} application.

**Change Summary:** {pr_description}
**Modified Code:** {code_diff}
**Static Analysis:** {sonarqube_issues}, {codeql_alerts}
**Architecture:** {system_architecture_summary}

Focus on:
1. Security vulnerabilities missed by static tools
2. Performance implications at scale
3. Edge cases and error handling gaps
4. API contract compatibility
5. Testability and missing coverage
6. Architectural alignment

For each issue:
- Specify file path and line numbers
- Classify severity: CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW
- Explain problem (1-2 sentences)
- Provide concrete fix example
- Link relevant documentation

Format as JSON array.
"""

Model Selection (2025)

• Fast reviews (<200 lines): GPT-4o-mini or Claude 4.5 Haiku
• Deep reasoning: Claude 4.5 Sonnet or GPT-5 (200K+ tokens)
• Code generation: GitHub Copilot or Qodo
• Multi-language: Qodo or CodeAnt AI (30+ languages)

Review Routing

interface ReviewRoutingStrategy {
  async routeReview(pr: PullRequest): Promise<ReviewEngine> {
    const metrics = await this.analyzePRComplexity(pr);

    if (metrics.filesChanged > 50 || metrics.linesChanged > 1000) {
      return new HumanReviewRequired("Too large for automation");
    }

    if (metrics.securitySensitive || metrics.affectsAuth) {
      return new AIEngine("claude-3.7-sonnet", {
        temperature: 0.1,
        maxTokens: 4000,
        systemPrompt: SECURITY_FOCUSED_PROMPT
      });
    }

    if (metrics.testCoverageGap > 20) {
      return new QodoEngine({ mode: "test-generation", coverageTarget: 80 });
    }

    return new AIEngine("gpt-4o", { temperature: 0.3, maxTokens: 2000 });
  }
}

Imported: Summary

Comprehensive AI code review combining:

1. Multi-tool static analysis (SonarQube, CodeQL, Semgrep)
2. State-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-5, Claude 4.5 Sonnet)
3. Seamless CI/CD integration (GitHub Actions, GitLab, Azure DevOps)
4. 30+ language support with language-specific linters
5. Actionable review comments with severity and fix examples
6. DORA metrics tracking for review effectiveness
7. Quality gates preventing low-quality code
8. Auto-test generation via Qodo/CodiumAI

Use this tool to transform code review from manual process to automated AI-assisted quality assurance catching issues early with instant feedback.

Imported: Context

Multi-layered code review workflows integrating with CI/CD pipelines, providing instant feedback on pull requests with human oversight for architectural decisions. Reviews across 30+ languages combine rule-based analysis with AI-assisted contextual understanding.

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @code-review-ai-ai-review-v2 to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @code-review-ai-ai-review-v2 against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @code-review-ai-ai-review-v2 for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @code-review-ai-ai-review-v2 using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Imported Usage Notes

Imported: Complete Example: AI Review Automation

#!/usr/bin/env python3
import os, json, subprocess
from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import List, Dict, Any
from anthropic import Anthropic

@dataclass
class ReviewIssue:
    file_path: str; line: int; severity: str
    category: str; title: str; description: str
    code_example: str = ""; auto_fixable: bool = False

class CodeReviewOrchestrator:
    def __init__(self, pr_number: int, repo: str):
        self.pr_number = pr_number; self.repo = repo
        self.github_token = os.environ['GITHUB_TOKEN']
        self.anthropic_client = Anthropic(api_key=os.environ['ANTHROPIC_API_KEY'])
        self.issues: List[ReviewIssue] = []

    def run_static_analysis(self) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        results = {}

        # SonarQube
        subprocess.run(['sonar-scanner', f'-Dsonar.projectKey={self.repo}'], check=True)

        # Semgrep
        semgrep_output = subprocess.check_output(['semgrep', 'scan', '--config=auto', '--json'])
        results['semgrep'] = json.loads(semgrep_output)

        return results

    def ai_review(self, diff: str, static_results: Dict) -> List[ReviewIssue]:
        prompt = f"""Review this PR comprehensively.

**Diff:** {diff[:15000]}
**Static Analysis:** {json.dumps(static_results, indent=2)[:5000]}

Focus: Security, Performance, Architecture, Bug risks, Maintainability

Return JSON array:
[{{
  "file_path": "src/auth.py", "line": 42, "severity": "CRITICAL",
  "category": "Security", "title": "Brief summary",
  "description": "Detailed explanation", "code_example": "Fix code"
}}]
"""

        response = self.anthropic_client.messages.create(
            model="claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022",
            max_tokens=8000, temperature=0.2,
            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
        )

        content = response.content[0].text
        if '```json' in content:
            content = content.split('```json')[1].split('```')[0]

        return [ReviewIssue(**issue) for issue in json.loads(content.strip())]

    def post_review_comments(self, issues: List[ReviewIssue]):
        summary = "## 🤖 AI Code Review\n\n"
        by_severity = {}
        for issue in issues:
            by_severity.setdefault(issue.severity, []).append(issue)

        for severity in ['CRITICAL', 'HIGH', 'MEDIUM', 'LOW']:
            count = len(by_severity.get(severity, []))
            if count > 0:
                summary += f"- **{severity}**: {count}\n"

        critical_count = len(by_severity.get('CRITICAL', []))
        review_data = {
            'body': summary,
            'event': 'REQUEST_CHANGES' if critical_count > 0 else 'COMMENT',
            'comments': [issue.to_github_comment() for issue in issues]
        }

        # Post to GitHub API
        print(f"✅ Posted review with {len(issues)} comments")

if __name__ == '__main__':
    import argparse
    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser()
    parser.add_argument('--pr-number', type=int, required=True)
    parser.add_argument('--repo', required=True)
    args = parser.parse_args()

    reviewer = CodeReviewOrchestrator(args.pr_number, args.repo)
    static_results = reviewer.run_static_analysis()
    diff = reviewer.get_pr_diff()
    ai_issues = reviewer.ai_review(diff, static_results)
    reviewer.post_review_comments(ai_issues)

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
• Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
• Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/code-review-ai-ai-review, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @00-andruia-consultant - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @00-andruia-consultant-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Requirements

Review: $ARGUMENTS

Perform comprehensive analysis: security, performance, architecture, maintainability, testing, and AI/ML-specific concerns. Generate review comments with line references, code examples, and actionable recommendations.

Imported: Architecture Analysis

Architectural Coherence

1. Dependency Direction: Inner layers don't depend on outer layers
2. SOLID Principles:
   • Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov Substitution
   • Interface Segregation, Dependency Inversion
3. Anti-patterns:
   • Singleton (global state), God objects (>500 lines, >20 methods)
   • Anemic models, Shotgun surgery

Microservices Review

type MicroserviceReviewChecklist struct {
    CheckServiceCohesion       bool  // Single capability per service?
    CheckDataOwnership         bool  // Each service owns database?
    CheckAPIVersioning         bool  // Semantic versioning?
    CheckBackwardCompatibility bool  // Breaking changes flagged?
    CheckCircuitBreakers       bool  // Resilience patterns?
    CheckIdempotency           bool  // Duplicate event handling?
}

func (r *MicroserviceReviewer) AnalyzeServiceBoundaries(code string) []Issue {
    issues := []Issue{}

    if detectsSharedDatabase(code) {
        issues = append(issues, Issue{
            Severity: "HIGH",
            Category: "Architecture",
            Message: "Services sharing database violates bounded context",
            Fix: "Implement database-per-service with eventual consistency",
        })
    }

    if hasBreakingAPIChanges(code) && !hasDeprecationWarnings(code) {
        issues = append(issues, Issue{
            Severity: "CRITICAL",
            Category: "API Design",
            Message: "Breaking change without deprecation period",
            Fix: "Maintain backward compatibility via versioning (v1, v2)",
        })
    }

    return issues
}

Imported: Security Vulnerability Detection

Multi-Layered Security

SAST Layer: CodeQL, Semgrep, Bandit/Brakeman/Gosec

AI-Enhanced Threat Modeling:

security_analysis_prompt = """
Analyze authentication code for vulnerabilities:
{code_snippet}

Check for:
1. Authentication bypass, broken access control (IDOR)
2. JWT token validation flaws
3. Session fixation/hijacking, timing attacks
4. Missing rate limiting, insecure password storage
5. Credential stuffing protection gaps

Provide: CWE identifier, CVSS score, exploit scenario, remediation code
"""

findings = claude.analyze(security_analysis_prompt, temperature=0.1)

Secret Scanning:

trufflehog git file://. --json | \
  jq '.[] | select(.Verified == true) | {
    secret_type: .DetectorName,
    file: .SourceMetadata.Data.Filename,
    severity: "CRITICAL"
  }'

OWASP Top 10 (2025)

1. A01 - Broken Access Control: Missing authorization, IDOR
2. A02 - Cryptographic Failures: Weak hashing, insecure RNG
3. A03 - Injection: SQL, NoSQL, command injection via taint analysis
4. A04 - Insecure Design: Missing threat modeling
5. A05 - Security Misconfiguration: Default credentials
6. A06 - Vulnerable Components: Snyk/Dependabot for CVEs
7. A07 - Authentication Failures: Weak session management
8. A08 - Data Integrity Failures: Unsigned JWTs
9. A09 - Logging Failures: Missing audit logs
10. A10 - SSRF: Unvalidated user-controlled URLs

Imported: Performance Review

Performance Profiling

class PerformanceReviewAgent {
  async analyzePRPerformance(prNumber) {
    const baseline = await this.loadBaselineMetrics('main');
    const prBranch = await this.runBenchmarks(`pr-${prNumber}`);

    const regressions = this.detectRegressions(baseline, prBranch, {
      cpuThreshold: 10, memoryThreshold: 15, latencyThreshold: 20
    });

    if (regressions.length > 0) {
      await this.postReviewComment(prNumber, {
        severity: 'HIGH',
        title: '⚠️ Performance Regression Detected',
        body: this.formatRegressionReport(regressions),
        suggestions: await this.aiGenerateOptimizations(regressions)
      });
    }
  }
}

Scalability Red Flags

• N+1 Queries, Missing Indexes, Synchronous External Calls
• In-Memory State, Unbounded Collections, Missing Pagination
• No Connection Pooling, No Rate Limiting

def detect_n_plus_1_queries(code_ast):
    issues = []
    for loop in find_loops(code_ast):
        db_calls = find_database_calls_in_scope(loop.body)
        if len(db_calls) > 0:
            issues.append({
                'severity': 'HIGH',
                'line': loop.line_number,
                'message': f'N+1 query: {len(db_calls)} DB calls in loop',
                'fix': 'Use eager loading (JOIN) or batch loading'
            })
    return issues

Imported: Review Comment Generation

Structured Format

interface ReviewComment {
  path: string; line: number;
  severity: 'CRITICAL' | 'HIGH' | 'MEDIUM' | 'LOW' | 'INFO';
  category: 'Security' | 'Performance' | 'Bug' | 'Maintainability';
  title: string; description: string;
  codeExample?: string; references?: string[];
  autoFixable: boolean; cwe?: string; cvss?: number;
  effort: 'trivial' | 'easy' | 'medium' | 'hard';
}

const comment: ReviewComment = {
  path: "src/auth/login.ts", line: 42,
  severity: "CRITICAL", category: "Security",
  title: "SQL Injection in Login Query",
  description: `String concatenation with user input enables SQL injection.
**Attack Vector:** Input 'admin' OR '1'='1' bypasses authentication.
**Impact:** Complete auth bypass, unauthorized access.`,
  codeExample: `
// ❌ Vulnerable
const query = \`SELECT * FROM users WHERE username = '\${username}'\`;

// ✅ Secure
const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE username = ?';
const result = await db.execute(query, [username]);
  `,
  references: ["https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html"],
  autoFixable: false, cwe: "CWE-89", cvss: 9.8, effort: "easy"
};

Imported: CI/CD Integration

GitHub Actions

name: AI Code Review
on:
  pull_request:
    types: [opened, synchronize, reopened]

jobs:
  ai-review:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4

      - name: Static Analysis
        run: |
          sonar-scanner -Dsonar.pullrequest.key=${{ github.event.number }}
          codeql database create codeql-db --language=javascript,python
          semgrep scan --config=auto --sarif --output=semgrep.sarif

      - name: AI-Enhanced Review (GPT-5)
        env:
          OPENAI_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.OPENAI_API_KEY }}
        run: |
          python scripts/ai_review.py \
            --pr-number ${{ github.event.number }} \
            --model gpt-4o \
            --static-analysis-results codeql.sarif,semgrep.sarif

      - name: Post Comments
        uses: actions/github-script@v7
        with:
          script: |
            const comments = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('review-comments.json'));
            for (const comment of comments) {
              await github.rest.pulls.createReviewComment({
                owner: context.repo.owner,
                repo: context.repo.repo,
                pull_number: context.issue.number,
                body: comment.body, path: comment.path, line: comment.line
              });
            }

      - name: Quality Gate
        run: |
          CRITICAL=$(jq '[.[] | select(.severity == "CRITICAL")] | length' review-comments.json)
          if [ $CRITICAL -gt 0 ]; then
            echo "❌ Found $CRITICAL critical issues"
            exit 1
          fi

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.