Skill

gemini-code-review

This skill should be used when the user asks to review code changes, review a PR, get a second opinion on a diff, cross-check modifications, or perform a security review using Gemini. Relevant when the user says "review this PR with Gemini," "check my diff for bugs," or "get a second opinion on these changes."

Install

npx claudepluginhub naluforge/geminicli-cc-plugin --plugin gemini

Tool Access

This skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.

Preview

**Invoke using `/gemini-review` or `mcp__gemini__gemini_execute` with a review-focused prompt.**

SKILL.md

Similar Skills

cache-components

Guides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR) with cacheComponents enabled. Implements 'use cache', cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag(), static/dynamic optimization, and cache debugging.

cache-components

139.2k

claude-opus-4-5-migration

2 files

Migrates code, prompts, and API calls from Claude Sonnet 4.0/4.5 or Opus 4.1 to Opus 4.5, updating model strings on Anthropic, AWS, GCP, Azure platforms.

claude-opus-4-5-migration

83.2k

smart-explore

Performs token-optimized structural code search using tree-sitter AST parsing to discover symbols, outline files, and unfold code without reading full files.

claude-mem

65.8k

Stats

Stars1

Forks0

Last CommitApr 2, 2026

Actions

View Source View Plugin View on GitHub View README

Code Review Cross-Check with Gemini

Invoke using /gemini-review or mcp__gemini__gemini_execute with a review-focused prompt.

When to Use Gemini for Review

Gemini provides value as an independent reviewer when:

Changes are large (>500 lines) and benefit from fresh eyes
Changes touch security-sensitive code (auth, crypto, input validation)
You want to catch bugs that familiarity with the code might mask
A PR needs review and no human reviewer is immediately available
You want a second opinion on architectural decisions in the diff

Gathering Context

Good reviews need full context, not just diffs:

Get the diff: git diff for working changes, gh pr diff N for PRs
Get full file content: Changed lines make more sense with surrounding code. Read the complete files, not just the diff hunks.
Get commit history: git log main..HEAD --oneline shows the intent behind the changes
Get PR description: gh pr view N --json title,body for context on what the PR aims to accomplish

Structuring the Review Prompt

Send Gemini a structured review request:

The full diff
Complete content of changed files
PR description or commit messages for intent
Specific areas of concern (if any)

Ask Gemini to check for:

Bugs: Logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined handling
Security: Injection, auth bypasses, data exposure, secrets in code
Edge cases: Empty inputs, concurrent access, error paths
Performance: N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations, missing indexes
Consistency: Naming conventions, patterns used elsewhere in the codebase

Parameters

model: Prefer pro for large or security-sensitive reviews; flash is sufficient for small diffs
timeout_ms: 2400000 (40 minutes) — large diffs and full-repo reviews need extended time
include_directories: Directories containing the changed files

Interpreting Results

Group findings by severity:

Critical: Must fix before merging (bugs, security, data loss)
Warning: Should investigate (logic concerns, missing error handling)
Suggestion: Nice to have (style, naming, documentation)

A clean review (no findings) is valuable signal — it means an independent model found nothing concerning. Report this explicitly rather than staying silent.