How do I install the Review Diffs skill?

Run npx skillmds add majiayu000/review-diffs 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 Review Diffs safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: reads secrets. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Review Diffs?

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 Review Diffs free to use?

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

Who published Review Diffs?

majiayu000 (@majiayu000) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Review Diffs by majiayu000 — Agent Skill

Name: Review Diffs
Rating: 4.666666666666667 (3 reviews)
Author: majiayu000

Review Diffs

Performs comprehensive code review on git diffs and generates review.md with quality scores, critical issues, performance concerns, and potential bugs. Use when user requests to review changes, check code quality, analyze diffs, or validate LLM-generated code

majiayu000 69d49bc 2 files · 2.5 KB Updated Sep 9, 2026 567 repo stars

File contents

Review diffs

Instructions

Read diffs with git diff commands, and review code after LLM changes code

Todo

Read diffs with git diff commands
Review diffs
Create/update docs/review.md in the current directory that you're working on

What docs/review.md should contain

Score (up to 100)
Short summary
Critical issue
Potentially performance issue
potential bug

Examples

Score (up to 100): 45
Short summary: format_all_attachment is now wired into the token counter, but the prompt builder still falls back to the old helper that drops full-file attachments whenever a ranged snippet exists, so the shipped behavior hasn’t actually improved and the token math is now inconsistent with what the LLM sees.
Critical issue:
- PromptBuilder.build_prompt still chooses format_ranged_attachment for the whole batch whenever any attachment has line_range, and the helper only emits entries for those ranged files, so attachments without ranges vanish from the actual prompt even though the new formatter counts them. Users still lose files and won’t get their code reviewed. (src/usecase/message/prompt_builder.py:24, src/usecase/helper/helper.py:198)
Potentially performance issue:
- GenerateMessageUseCase.execute now counts tokens for every attachment via format_all_attachment, but the prompt builder sends fewer tokens when the mix contains both ranged and full files. Legitimate requests are rejected too early with EEAOAI40003 even though the downstream prompt would have fit, effectively shrinking usable context and wasting retries. (src/usecase/message/generate.py:140, src/usecase/message/prompt_builder.py:24)
potential bug:
- The same prompt-builder helper is used for each HistoryItem, so any historical message that combined ranged and non-ranged attachments will also drop the non-ranged ones. Past context can silently disappear between turns, leading the model to hallucinate or ignore previous uploads. (src/usecase/message/prompt_builder.py:33)

---name: review-diffsdescription: Performs comprehensive code review on git diffs and generates review.md with quality scores, critical issues, performance concerns, and potential bugs. Use when user requests to review changes, check code quality, analyze diffs, or validate LLM-generated code--- # Review diffs ## Instructions - Read diffs with `git diff` commands, and review code after LLM changes code ## Todo - Read diffs with `git diff` commands - Review diffs - Create/update docs/review.md in the current directory that you're working on ## What docs/review.md should contain - Score (up to 100) - Short summary - Critical issue - Potentially performance issue - potential bug ## Examples - Score (up to 100): 45 - Short summary: `format_all_attachment` is now wired into the token counter, but the prompt builder still falls back to the old helper that drops full-file attachments whenever a ranged snippet exists, so the shipped behavior hasn’t actually improved and the token math is now inconsistent with what the LLM sees. - Critical issue: - `PromptBuilder.build_prompt` still chooses `format_ranged_attachment` for the whole batch whenever *any* attachment has `line_range`, and the helper only emits entries for those ranged files, so attachments without ranges vanish from the actual prompt even though the new formatter counts them. Users still lose files and won’t get their code reviewed. (src/usecase/message/prompt_builder.py:24, src/usecase/helper/helper.py:198) - Potentially performance issue: - `GenerateMessageUseCase.execute` now counts tokens for every attachment via `format_all_attachment`, but the prompt builder sends fewer tokens when the mix contains both ranged and full files. Legitimate requests are rejected too early with EEAOAI40003 even though the downstream prompt would have fit, effectively shrinking usable context and wasting retries. (src/usecase/message/generate.py:140, src/usecase/message/prompt_builder.py:24) - potential bug: - The same prompt-builder helper is used for each `HistoryItem`, so any historical message that combined ranged and non-ranged attachments will also drop the non-ranged ones. Past context can silently disappear between turns, leading the model to hallucinate or ignore previous uploads. (src/usecase/message/prompt_builder.py:33)

Frequently asked questions