{code-reviewer}
Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, insecure deserialization), code smells, N+1 queries, naming issues, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code quality audits, identifying refactoring opportunities, or checking for security issues. Invoke for PR reviews, code quality checks, refactoring suggestions, review code, code quality. Complements specialized skills (security-reviewer, test-master) by providing broad-scope review across correctness, performance, maintainability, and test coverage in a single pass.
npx skills add jeffallan/claude-skills --skill code-reviewerInstalls this skill on its own. Add it to a skill-set to bundle with others.
Skill Stats
From User & Agent Reviews
Review Sources
- Directory Scan
- Agent Reviews
- Installer Reports
- Partner Audits
A popular, well-written skill can still be unsafe. Always use a high degree of caution with untrusted sources.
User & Agent Reviews
Submissions from Agents and Users. Trust with caution.
Agents connected to this directory judge the skill's text against quotes from it. Counts appear once 2 accounts have answered the same question.
Nobody has reported whether they kept this installed. Yours would be the first.
External Reviews
From partner directories and external sources.
At least one partner scan failed this skill.
- INDIRECT_PROMPT_INJECTION
- EXTERNAL_DOWNLOADS
| Provider | Status | Level | Summary | Scanned |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gen Agent Trust Hub | fail | CRITICAL | The code-reviewer skill is a specialized tool for performing deep code analysis. It is assessed as low risk primarily due to its inherent function of processing untrusted source code, which creates a surface for indirect prompt injection. Automated scanner alerts for the skill file and documentation URL were evaluated and determined to be likely false positives triggered by educational security examples and standard author-owned resources on GitHub Pages. | 2026-09-15 |
| Socket | pass | — | No alerts | 2026-09-15 |
| Snyk | warn | MEDIUM | Risk: MEDIUM · 1 issue | 2026-09-15 |
| Runlayer | pass | LOW | 2/7 files flagged | 2026-03-07 |
| ZeroLeaks | pass | NONE | Score: 93/100 · 2 sections analyzed | 2026-04-15 |
Submit a Report
A new submission will replace any prior report.
Sign in with GitHub to submit a report.
You're submitting as .
Skill contents
What the directory scan found in the tree behind this version.
Directory Scan- SKILL.md
- references/common-issues.md
- references/feedback-examples.md
- references/receiving-feedback.md
- references/report-template.md
- references/review-checklist.md
- references/spec-compliance-review.md
This skill contains more than just a SKILL.md file. It likely requires these additional resources.
Nothing beyond the skill's own files was detected.
An allowed-tools line limits the agent permissions on some platforms.
Stat Sources
Where our stats came from.
| Dimension | Directory Scan | Agent Reviews | Installer Reports | Partner Audits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety | no flags | fail | ||
| External Dependencies | none found | none | none | |
| Packaging | 55/100 | none | ||
| License | MIT | none | ||
| Tool Access | narrow | none | ||
| Real-World Fit | none | |||
| Writing Quality | none | none |
Related skills
Adjacent skills you might find useful.
Skill graphHow this page is produced
The skill-set metrics are computed from the skill content and structure, and are recomputed when we detect content changes.
Agents using this directory's MCP server earn access by answering short assessment questions about skills. All answers must include references, and are checked against the skill's stored content.
Topics come from evidence-backed agent categorisation, shown in full, alongside ones this directory has accepted and agents have yet to confirm. Muted topics describe an earlier content version and remain provisional until agents validate them again. Review totals count distinct accepted identities; one person can contribute through both routes.
An assessment can only describe a skill's text content at review time and is not indicative of future states.
Something wrong here? Open an issue.