reviewing-code

Name: reviewing-code
Availability: InStock
Author: nexus-substrate

Review PR diffs against correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance.

18|1|Updated Jan 3, 2026

Search Tags:#type safety #code review #linting #security #pull requests #test coverage #architecture compliance

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/nexus-substrate/nexus-agents --skill reviewing-code-nexus-substrate

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: reviewing-code
Source: https://github.com/nexus-substrate/nexus-agents/tree/main/skills/reviewing-code
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/nexus-substrate/nexus-agents --skill reviewing-code-nexus-substrate

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

It helps ensure code changes shipped via PRs meet project standards and security expectations by reviewing diffs across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance.

Core Features & Use Cases

Five-axis post-hoc PR review: Evaluates correctness, readability, architecture alignment, security hygiene, and performance risks to prevent regressions.
Verification-gated findings: Enforces a mandatory pre-flag checklist (context window, call-path tracing, observable failure definition, and JS non-issue rules) to reduce false positives.
Actionable outcomes: Produces a structured report with Critical (must fix), Major (should fix), and Recommendations (approve vs request changes) tailored for engineering triage.

Quick Start

Use the reviewing-code skill to audit a pull request diff for standards compliance, security risks, and test/coverage sufficiency.

Frequently Asked Questions about reviewing-code

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

FAQPage Schema

How do I perform an automated security and code review on a pull request diff?▼

Perform automated pull request code review by evaluating diffs against correctness, architecture, security, and performance requirements. The review enforces a verification gate using local lint, typecheck, and test coverage to ensure only valid findings are reported.

What is the best way to reduce false positives when auditing code for security issues and architecture compliance?▼

Reduce false positives in security and architecture compliance auditing by applying a mandatory pre-flag checklist. This verification gate traces call paths and defines observable failures, ensuring only issues passing local quality gates are reported.

Can I use automated PR review to check test coverage and type safety before merging?▼

Yes, you can check test coverage and type safety by running local quality gates during the PR review. The process executes lint, typecheck, and test commands, only reporting code findings that pass this mandatory verification.

How do I structure post-hoc code review findings for engineering triage?▼

Structure post-hoc code review findings into a tailored report featuring Critical issues that must be fixed, Major issues to address, and Recommendations for approving or requesting changes. This format optimizes pull request governance workflows.

Does automated PR review evaluate readability and performance risks alongside security?▼

Yes, automated PR review evaluates readability and performance risks alongside security, correctness, and architecture alignment. This five-axis evaluation ensures comprehensive standards compliance for code changes shipped via pull requests.

When should I use post-hoc code review instead of pre-merge checks?▼

Use post-hoc code review when auditing other agents' or developers' code after merge as part of PR governance workflows. It performs comprehensive five-axis evaluation and verification-gated reporting to ensure shipped changes meet project standards.