Back to skills
SkillHub ClubShip Full StackFull Stack
review
Review code changes, auto-fix safe issues, and report bugs
Packaged view
This page reorganizes the original catalog entry around fit, installability, and workflow context first. The original raw source lives below.
Stars
10,265
Hot score
99
Updated
March 20, 2026
Overall rating
C5.2
Composite score
5.2
Best-practice grade
B84.0
Install command
npx @skill-hub/cli install elie222-inbox-zero-review
Repository
elie222/inbox-zero
Skill path: .claude/skills/review
Review code changes, auto-fix safe issues, and report bugs
Open repositoryBest for
Primary workflow: Ship Full Stack.
Technical facets: Full Stack.
Target audience: everyone.
License: Unknown.
Original source
Catalog source: SkillHub Club.
Repository owner: elie222.
This is still a mirrored public skill entry. Review the repository before installing into production workflows.
What it helps with
- Install review into Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode workflows
- Review https://github.com/elie222/inbox-zero before adding review to shared team environments
- Use review for development workflows
Works across
Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLIOpenCode
Favorites: 0.
Sub-skills: 0.
Aggregator: No.
Original source / Raw SKILL.md
--- name: review description: Review code changes, auto-fix safe issues, and report bugs disable-model-invocation: true --- # review Code review with craftsman's eye. Auto-fix obvious issues, surface real bugs. Reference @AGENTS.md for project conventions. Apply those patterns as review criteria. ## Critical Rules 1. **AUTO-FIX safe obvious issues** - Don't ask permission for no-brainers 2. **HUNT FOR BUGS** - Logic errors, edge cases, race conditions first 3. **WAIT for confirmation** - On BUG/FIX, don't execute until user says "go" 4. **BE CONCISE** - One-line items, choices at END 5. **USE clickable links** - `path/to/file.ts:123` format only ## Categories | Category | What | Action | |----------|------|--------| | **[BUG]** | Logic errors, security, data loss, race conditions | Report → wait | | **[FIX]** | Type gaps, missing error handling, test gaps, slop | Report → wait | | **[AUTO]** | Unused imports, dead code, console.log, typos | Fix immediately | | **[CONSIDER]** | Refactors, style opinions, nice-to-have | Mention only | ### AUTO Criteria (all must be true) - Zero risk of breaking behavior - <5 seconds to fix - No judgment call needed **AUTO examples:** - Unused imports/variables - Trailing whitespace - Console.log (unless intentional) - Dead/unreachable code - Obvious typos in comments/strings **NOT AUTO (needs confirmation):** - Removing "unused" function (might be used elsewhere) - Type changes (might change behavior) - Any logic change - AI slop removal (might be intentional) ## Project-Specific Checks **Always ask these questions during review:** ### Can this be simpler? - Is there unnecessary abstraction? Could this be done with less code? - Are there helpers/utils being created for one-time operations? - Over-engineered error handling, feature flags, or backwards-compat shims? - Unnecessary wrapper components or HOCs? ### Can we remove any code? - Dead code, unused exports, commented-out blocks? - Re-exports or barrel files (we don't use barrel files)? - Backwards-compatibility hacks like renamed `_vars` or `// removed` comments? - Types/interfaces exported but only used in the same file? ### Is it DRY without premature abstraction? - Obvious copy-paste of entire functions or large blocks → refactor - But 2-3 similar lines are fine — don't abstract too early - The wrong abstraction is worse than duplication ### Is it structured correctly? - **Colocate page-specific components** next to their page (not in a nested `components/` subfolder — we don't do that in route directories) - **General/reusable components** go in `apps/web/components/` - **API routes**: One resource per route, not combined data endpoints - **Server actions** for mutations, not POST routes - **Validation schemas** in separate `.validation.ts` files - **Helper functions** at the bottom of files, not the top - **All imports** at the top — no mid-file dynamic imports - **No barrel files** (index.ts re-exporting everything from a folder) ### Does it follow project patterns? (see @AGENTS.md) - GET routes wrapped with `withAuth` or `withEmailAccount`? - Response types exported as `Awaited<ReturnType<typeof fn>>`? - SWR for client-side data fetching? - `LoadingContent` for loading/error states? - `useAction` from `next-safe-action/hooks` for form submissions? - Zod schemas with `z.infer<typeof schema>` instead of duplicate interfaces? - Self-documenting code? Comments explain "why" not "what"? - `logger.trace()` for PII fields? - Test changes follow `.claude/skills/testing/SKILL.md`? - Tests avoid mocking `@/utils/logger`? ### Learnings check - Did this change teach us something that should be captured in `AGENTS.md` or this review file? - Are there patterns that keep coming up that we should document? ## Mindset **Inheritance Test:** Would I curse the previous author? Understand at 2am? **Pride Test:** Would I put my name on this? ## Workflow ### Step 0: Determine Scope & Group Files Auto-detect: conversation changes → staged → current diff ```bash git diff --cached --name-only # or HEAD ``` **Group files by area/dependency:** ``` Batch 1: apps/web/app/api/agent/* (3 files) Batch 2: apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/agent/* (related components) Batch 3: apps/web/utils/actions/* (2 files) ``` **Output:** `Found X files in Y batches` ────────── ### Step 1: Create Review Plan (TODO) **BEFORE reading any file content**, create todo list: ``` - [ ] Batch 1: API routes (skills, allowed-actions) - [ ] Batch 2: agent page components (agent-page, chat, tools) - [ ] Batch 3: server actions (agent.ts, agent.validation.ts) ``` Use `todo_write` to track batches. ────────── ### Step 2: Process Each Batch **For each batch:** 1. Read diff for batch files only (`git diff --cached -- path/to/files`) 2. Review & categorize issues 3. Auto-fix [AUTO] items immediately 4. Note [BUG]/[FIX]/[CONSIDER] items 5. Mark batch complete in todos **Issue format:** ``` 1. **[BUG]** Race condition in concurrent saves — `src/db.ts:45` 2. **[FIX]** Missing error boundary — `src/App.tsx:12` 3. **[CONSIDER]** Extract to custom hook — `src/Form.tsx:34` ``` **After each batch:** ``` Batch 1 done: AUTO: 2 fixed | BUG: 1 | FIX: 2 ``` ────────── ### Step 3: Summary & Options (After All Batches) ``` Total: BUG: X | FIX: X | CONSIDER: X (auto-fixed: Y) Issues: 1. [BUG] ... — `path:line` 2. [FIX] ... — `path:line` What to fix? - a) BUG + FIX [recommended] - b) BUG only - c) All including CONSIDER - d) Custom (e.g., "1,3") I'll assume a) if you don't specify. Learnings: - Any patterns worth adding to AGENTS.md? - Any new review checks to add to this file? ``` **STOP. Wait for selection.** ────────── ### Step 4: Execute Fixes Process fixes batch-by-batch (same grouping): 1. Update todo list with selected fixes 2. For each batch: - Read relevant file(s) - Apply fixes - Mark complete 3. Run linter if applicable ## Severity Guide **BUG (Logic/Security):** - Business logic errors, wrong conditions - Race conditions, data loss - Security: injection, XSS, exposed secrets - API routes missing auth middleware - Null/undefined not handled - Edge cases that break **FIX (Quality):** - Type safety gaps, unsafe casts - Missing error handling - Test coverage gaps - AI slop (WHAT comments, unnecessary try/catch, `as any`) - Missing validation - Combined API routes that should be separate - POST routes used for mutations instead of server actions - Barrel files / re-export patterns **CONSIDER (Opinions):** - Refactoring opportunities - "I would do it differently" - Performance micro-optimizations - Style preferences ## Git Commands ```bash # Staged git diff --cached git diff --cached --name-only # All uncommitted git diff HEAD git diff HEAD --name-only ``` ## Error Handling | Error | Response | |-------|----------| | No changes | "Check git status or specify files" | | File not found | List available, ask to specify | | Binary files | Skip, mention in summary | | Large file (>10k) | "Review specific sections?" |