gabrielmoreira Code Review Checklist Skill
Produces a tailored code review checklist for a specific pull request — scaled to the language, type of change, and risk level. Not a generic template.
Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- Language and framework (e.g. TypeScript + React / Python + FastAPI / Go)
- Type of change (feature / bug fix / refactor / dependency upgrade / security patch / performance)
- Risk level (low / medium / high / critical)
- PR description (paste the description or link to the PR)
- Code or diff (optional — paste key changed files or a
git diff; significantly improves checklist specificity) - Author context (new starter / experienced / external contributor)
Output Format
Code Review: [PR Title or Reference]
1. PR Overview
Scope assessment: [Small / Medium / Large / Too large — should be split] Recommended review depth: [Skim / Standard / Deep dive] Estimated review time: [e.g. 20–30 min — use 5 min per 50 lines of diff as a rough guide]
2. Correctness Checks
Language-specific correctness checks — choose based on the language stated:
For TypeScript/JavaScript:
- Type definitions match actual usage
- No implicit
anyin non-test code - Async/await used consistently; no unhandled promises
- Null/undefined handling is explicit
For Python:
- Type hints present on public functions
- Exception handling is specific (no bare except)
- Resources are closed (context managers, with blocks)
For Go:
- Errors are handled or explicitly ignored with a comment
- Context propagation is correct
- Goroutine lifetimes are bounded
[Include only the section matching the stated language]
3. Change-Type-Specific Checks
For bug fixes:
- A test exists that would have caught this bug
- The fix addresses root cause, not symptom
- Related code paths checked for the same issue
For features:
- Acceptance criteria met
- Edge cases handled (empty, large, concurrent)
- Error paths tested, not just happy path
- Telemetry/logging added for debugging
For refactors:
- Behaviour unchanged (tests still pass)
- No scope creep — refactor only
- Complexity reduced, not just moved
For dependency upgrades:
- Breaking changes reviewed
- Security advisories checked
- License compatibility verified
[Include only the section matching the stated change type]
4. Risk-Appropriate Checks
Low risk: basic correctness, style conventions, test coverage Medium risk: above + rollback plan, monitoring updates, performance considerations High risk: above + security implications, data migration safety, feature flag/gradual rollout Critical risk: above + staging validation plan, incident response plan, post-deploy verification checklist
5. Testing Adequacy
- Unit tests cover new logic
- Integration tests cover the contract changes
- Edge cases tested
- Failure modes tested
- Performance tests if performance-sensitive
6. Review Decision Framework
Approve if: [2-3 specific conditions based on this PR] Request changes if: [Specific blockers] Comment (non-blocking) if: [Items worth discussing but not blocking merge]
7. Common Pitfalls for This Change Type
Based on the change type and language, flag 2-3 things reviewers typically miss for this combination.
Scoring Rubric (0–40)
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Language specificity | Checks could apply to any language — a swapped-in language name would change nothing | Correct language block chosen, but checks restate the template rather than this PR's constructs | Every correctness check names a construct actually in the diff (goroutines, promise chains, context managers) |
| Risk-depth calibration | Same depth regardless of stated risk level | Depth roughly scales, but high-risk extras (rollback plan, staged rollout, monitoring) are missing or token | Depth matches the stated risk exactly and the review-time estimate follows the diff size guide |
| Decision-framework sharpness | "Approve if it looks good" — no named conditions | Blockers listed but untestable; a reviewer can't tell when they're satisfied | Every approve/block/comment condition is checkable against a specific test, flag, metric, or artifact |
| Pitfall specificity | Pitfalls absent or generic ("watch for bugs") | Pitfalls match the language or the change type, but not the combination | 2–3 pitfalls that only make sense for this exact language + change-type combination |
Quality Checks
- Checklist is tailored to the stated language (not generic)
- Change-type-specific section is included
- Risk-appropriate depth matches stated risk level
- Decision framework includes at least one named blocking condition and one named non-blocking comment condition
- Common pitfalls are specific to the stated language + change-type combo (not generic advice like "watch out for bugs")
Anti-Patterns
- Do not generate a generic checklist that ignores the stated language — a Python checklist and a Go checklist have fundamentally different correctness concerns
- Do not treat "looks fine" as a valid review outcome — the checklist exists to surface specific concerns, not validate a superficial read
- Do not scope a "high risk" review the same as a "low risk" review — depth must scale with the stated risk level
- Do not flag every stylistic preference as a blocking issue — distinguish between blocking correctness issues and non-blocking comments
- Do not skip the "common pitfalls" section for the stated language and change-type combination — this is where the most valuable knowledge lives
Usage Examples
- "Generate a code review checklist for [PR description]"
- "What should I check in this pull request?"
- "Give me a code review checklist for a [language] [change type]"
- "Review checklist for a high-risk PR in [language]"