How do I install the Openakita/skills@code Review skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add openakita/openakita-skills-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 Openakita/skills@code Review safe to use?

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

Which AI agents work with Openakita/skills@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 Openakita/skills@code Review free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free. This skill is licensed under MIT.

Who published Openakita/skills@code Review?

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

Openakita/skills@code Review by openakita

Name: Openakita/skills@code Review
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: openakita

Openakita/skills@code Review

Review code changes for correctness, security, and maintainability. Supports local git diffs (staged or working tree) and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). Use when the user asks to review code, check a PR, audit changes, or wants feedback on code quality before merging.

openakita Updated Sep 9, 2026

File contents

Code Reviewer

This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests.

Workflow

1. Determine Review Target

Remote PR: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR.
Local Changes: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes).

2. Preparation

For Remote PRs:

Checkout: Use the GitHub CLI to checkout the PR.
```
gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER>
```
Preflight: Execute the project's standard verification suite to catch automated failures early.
```
npm run preflight
```
Context: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history.

For Local Changes:

Identify Changes:
- Check status: git status
- Read diffs: git diff (working tree) and/or git diff --staged (staged).
Preflight (Optional): If the changes are substantial, ask the user if they want to run npm run preflight before reviewing.

3. In-Depth Analysis

Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars:

Correctness: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors?
Maintainability: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to understand and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns.
Readability: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines?
Efficiency: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes?
Security: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices?
Edge Cases and Error Handling: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors?
Testability: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (even if preflight checks pass)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness.

4. Provide Feedback

Structure

Summary: A high-level overview of the review.
Findings:
- Critical: Bugs, security issues, or breaking changes.
- Improvements: Suggestions for better code quality or performance.
- Nitpicks: Formatting or minor style issues (optional).
Conclusion: Clear recommendation (Approved / Request Changes).

Tone

Be constructive, professional, and friendly.
Explain why a change is requested.
For approvals, acknowledge the specific value of the contribution.

5. Cleanup (Remote PRs only)

After the review, ask the user if they want to switch back to the default branch (e.g., main or master).

---name: openakita-skills-code-reviewdescription: Review code changes for correctness, security, and maintainability. Supports local git diffs (staged or working tree) and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). Use when the user asks to review code, check a PR, audit changes, or wants feedback on code quality before merging.license: MIT--- # Code Reviewer This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests. ## Workflow ### 1. Determine Review Target * **Remote PR**: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR. * **Local Changes**: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes). ### 2. Preparation #### For Remote PRs: 1. **Checkout**: Use the GitHub CLI to checkout the PR. ```bash gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER> ``` 2. **Preflight**: Execute the project's standard verification suite to catch automated failures early. ```bash npm run preflight ``` 3. **Context**: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history. #### For Local Changes: 1. **Identify Changes**: * Check status: `git status` * Read diffs: `git diff` (working tree) and/or `git diff --staged` (staged). 2. **Preflight (Optional)**: If the changes are substantial, ask the user if they want to run `npm run preflight` before reviewing. ### 3. In-Depth Analysis Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars: * **Correctness**: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors? * **Maintainability**: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to understand and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns. * **Readability**: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines? * **Efficiency**: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes? * **Security**: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices? * **Edge Cases and Error Handling**: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors? * **Testability**: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (even if preflight checks pass)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness. ### 4. Provide Feedback #### Structure * **Summary**: A high-level overview of the review. * **Findings**: * **Critical**: Bugs, security issues, or breaking changes. * **Improvements**: Suggestions for better code quality or performance. * **Nitpicks**: Formatting or minor style issues (optional). * **Conclusion**: Clear recommendation (Approved / Request Changes). #### Tone * Be constructive, professional, and friendly. * Explain *why* a change is requested. * For approvals, acknowledge the specific value of the contribution. ### 5. Cleanup (Remote PRs only) * After the review, ask the user if they want to switch back to the default branch (e.g., `main` or `master`).

Frequently asked questions