# Code Reviewer > This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests. Use when this capability is needed. - Skill: `tomevault-io/code-reviewer-41` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/code-reviewer-41` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/code-reviewer-41/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/code-reviewer-41 --- # 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 ``` 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`). --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/google-gemini) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.