# Code Reviewer

> Performs deep, professional code reviews. Use this skill whenever a user wants to "review this code", "check for bugs", "improve quality", or needs a second pair of eyes on a Pull Request. This skill focuses on performance, security, maintainability, and clean code principles.

- Skill: `learn-with-santosh/code-reviewer` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add learn-with-santosh/code-reviewer`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/learn-with-santosh/code-reviewer/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Security
- Author: learn-with-santosh (https://skillmd.com/u/learn-with-santosh)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/learn-with-santosh/code-reviewer

---


# Code Reviewer Pro 🔍

This skill acts as a Senior Staff Engineer reviewing your work. It provides constructive, actionable feedback to elevate code quality and catch issues before they reach production.

## When to use this skill

Use this skill when:
- Reviewing a new feature before submission.
- Refactoring complex logic.
- Hunting for performance bottlenecks.
- Checking for security vulnerabilities.
- Ensuring consistency with project standards.

## Review Framework: The "Four Pillars"

Every review must evaluate the code across these four categories:

### 1. Correctness & Security
- Does it actually work as intended?
- Are there edge cases (nulls, empty lists, timeouts)?
- Any security risks (SQL injection, XSS, exposed secrets)?

### 2. Performance & Scalability
- Big O complexity of new algorithms.
- Unnecessary re-renders or API calls.
- Memory leaks or resource management issues.

### 3. Maintainability & Readability
- Is the naming descriptive and consistent?
- Is the logic too "clever" or hard to follow?
- Does it follow the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle?
- Proper documentation/comments for complex blocks.

### 4. Project Specifics
- Does it follow the patterns defined in `CLAUDE.md`?
- Are tests included and sufficient?

## Output Format

### 📝 Executive Summary
A quick overview of the review (e.g., "LGTM" or "Major concerns found").

### 🔴 Critical Issues
High-priority bugs or security risks that MUST be fixed.

### 🟡 Improvements
Suggestions for better performance or cleaner code.

### 🟢 Nitpicks
Minor stylistic suggestions or optional refactors.

### 💡 Refactored Version (Optional)
Provide a code block showing how the most complex part could be improved.

---

## Examples

### Example 1: Catching a Race Condition
**Input**: [Code snippet with an async loop]
**Output**:
"🔴 **Critical**: You are using `forEach` with an async callback. This won't wait for the promises to resolve. 
**Fix**: Use `for...of` or `Promise.all()` to ensure execution order and completion."

### Example 2: Performance Improvement
**Input**: [React component with heavy calculation in render]
**Output**:
"🟡 **Improvement**: The calculation of `filteredData` runs on every render.
**Fix**: Wrap it in `useMemo` with `data` as a dependency to avoid unnecessary recalculations."

---

## Best Practices
- **Be Respectful**: Frame feedback as "we" or "the code" rather than "you."
- **Provide Rationale**: Explain *why* a change is recommended.
- **Prioritize**: Don't bury critical bugs under minor nitpicks.