code-review-workflow

Systematizes .NET pull request code review using Roslyn MCP analysis and severity-based reporting.

Updated Apr 27, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/shahdanish/vibepos --skill code-review-workflow-shahdanish
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: code-review-workflow
Source: https://github.com/shahdanish/vibepos/tree/main/skills/code-review-workflow
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/shahdanish/vibepos --skill code-review-workflow-shahdanish

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Code reviews often miss subtle correctness, security, performance, and architecture issues because they rely on manual scanning and inconsistent checklists, which increases merge risk and tech debt.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • MCP-first analysis: Runs Roslyn MCP tools (antipattern detection, compiler diagnostics, public API inspection, reference blast radius, and project graph evaluation) before reading source files for context.
  • Consistent, severity-based reporting: Produces a structured review with clearly separated Critical, Warning, and Suggestion findings to keep attention on what must be fixed.
  • Coverage and architecture guardrails: Checks blast radius via references and validates dependency direction and module boundaries via project graphs and circular dependency detection.
  • Use Cases: PR reviews for .NET/C# changes (feature work, refactors), quick bug-fix reviews, and standalone architecture compliance checks for new modules or structural changes.

Quick Start

Ask the AI to run the code-review-workflow for your pull request by saying: Review my PR and include Critical, Warnings, Suggestions, Architecture Compliance, and Test Coverage.

Frequently Asked Questions about code-review-workflow

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I review C# pull requests for architecture violations and security bugs?

C# pull request review uses Roslyn MCP analysis to detect antipatterns, compiler diagnostics, and public API issues before reading source files. It validates project dependency direction and module boundaries to catch architecture violations and security bugs before merge.

What is the best way to systematize .NET code reviews to reduce missed defects?

Systematizing .NET code reviews involves running Roslyn MCP tools first to assess blast radius, reference impact, and project graphs. This produces severity-tagged findings separated into Critical, Warning, and Suggestion categories to ensure actionable coverage and reduce missed defects.

Can I check circular dependencies and blast radius in a .NET PR review?

Yes, .NET PR review validates dependency direction and module boundaries using project graph evaluation and circular dependency detection. It checks blast radius via references to ensure structural changes do not violate architecture compliance.

Does code review workflow work for quick bug fixes or only full PR reviews?

Code review workflow supports Quick Review mode for bug fixes and Full PR mode for feature work or refactors. It also offers standalone Architecture Compliance mode for evaluating new modules and structural changes.

How do I get severity-tagged actionable findings for my C# code changes?

C# code changes are analyzed using Roslyn MCP tools to generate structured findings with clearly separated Critical, Warning, and Suggestion severity tags. This severity-based reporting keeps attention on what must be fixed and acknowledges good patterns.

What does test coverage assessment include in a .NET pull request review?

Test coverage assessment in .NET PR review evaluates coverage alongside blast radius and architecture compliance. It runs as part of the structured review output to ensure code changes maintain testing guardrails before merging.