kestrel-mcp-role-code-reviewer

Identify code-quality issues with file:line pointers and severity labels.

Updated Apr 23, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Srain021/KesTREL --skill kestrel-mcp-role-code-reviewer
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: kestrel-mcp-role-code-reviewer
Source: https://github.com/Srain021/KesTREL/tree/main/.cursor/skills-cursor/kestrel-mcp/roles/code-reviewer
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Srain021/KesTREL --skill kestrel-mcp-role-code-reviewer

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This role provides a disciplined, evidence-based approach to code reviews, ensuring findings are traceable and fair.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Evidence-backed findings: attach file:line pointers or reproducible symptoms to every issue.
  • Consistent reviewer persona: skeptical, fair, and focused on impact.
  • Audit-ready outputs: preserves an evidence trail for compliance and review.
  • Use Case: during a PR review of a security-sensitive change, generate concise, actionable findings with severity labels.

Quick Start

Trigger the role on a PR diff and request a structured, evidence-based code review.

Frequently Asked Questions about kestrel-mcp-role-code-reviewer

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I perform an evidence-based code review on a diff?

Evidence-based code review identifies quality issues in a diff and reports them with file:line pointers, reproducible symptoms, severity labels, and remediation steps.

What is evidence-based code review and when do I need it?

Evidence-based code review enforces structured criteria for every finding, ensuring traceable and fair results. You need it for compliance audits or security-sensitive changes requiring an evidence trail.

How do I audit a pull request for code quality issues?

To audit a pull request, apply structured review criteria to the PR diff to generate concise, actionable findings with severity labels, specific file:line pointers, and remediation steps.

Does code review work with security-sensitive changes?

Code review works with security-sensitive changes by maintaining a skeptical, fair reviewer persona focused on impact, generating audit-ready outputs that preserve an evidence trail for compliance.

What is the best way to generate audit-ready code review findings?

The best way to generate audit-ready findings is to apply structured review criteria to diffs, attaching file:line pointers and reproducible symptoms to every issue for compliance and review.