Skill

code-review-playbook

Use this skill when conducting or improving code reviews. Provides structured review processes, conventional comments patterns, language-specific checklists, and feedback templates. Use when reviewing PRs or standardizing review practices.

From ork
Install
1
Run in your terminal
$
npx claudepluginhub yonatangross/orchestkit --plugin ork
Tool Access

This skill is limited to using the following tools:

ReadGlobGrepWebFetchWebSearch
Supporting Assets
View in Repository
assets/pr-template.md
assets/review-feedback-template.md
checklists/code-review-checklist.md
examples/conventional-comments.md
examples/pr-review-walkthrough.md
references/conventional-comments.md
references/review-patterns.md
rules/_sections.md
rules/_template.md
rules/linting-biome-rules.md
rules/linting-biome-setup.md
rules/python-quality.md
rules/security-baseline.md
rules/typescript-quality.md
scripts/fetch-pr-data.sh
scripts/review-pr.md
scripts/run-lint-check.sh
scripts/run-pr-checks.py
test-cases.json
Skill Content

Code Review Playbook

This skill provides a comprehensive framework for effective code reviews that improve code quality, share knowledge, and foster collaboration. Whether you're a reviewer giving feedback or an author preparing code for review, this playbook ensures reviews are thorough, consistent, and constructive.

Overview

  • Reviewing pull requests or merge requests
  • Preparing code for review (self-review)
  • Establishing code review standards for teams
  • Training new developers on review best practices
  • Resolving disagreements about code quality
  • Improving review processes and efficiency

Code Review Philosophy

Purpose of Code Reviews

Code reviews serve multiple purposes:

  1. Quality Assurance: Catch bugs, logic errors, and edge cases
  2. Knowledge Sharing: Spread domain knowledge across the team
  3. Consistency: Ensure codebase follows conventions and patterns
  4. Mentorship: Help developers improve their skills
  5. Collective Ownership: Build shared responsibility for code
  6. Documentation: Create discussion history for future reference

Principles

Be Kind and Respectful:

  • Review the code, not the person
  • Assume positive intent
  • Praise good solutions
  • Frame feedback constructively

Be Specific and Actionable:

  • Point to specific lines of code
  • Explain why something should change
  • Suggest concrete improvements
  • Provide examples when helpful

Balance Speed with Thoroughness:

  • Aim for timely feedback (< 24 hours)
  • Don't rush critical reviews
  • Use automation for routine checks
  • Focus human review on logic and design

Distinguish Must-Fix from Nice-to-Have:

  • Use conventional comments to indicate severity
  • Block merges only for critical issues
  • Allow authors to defer minor improvements
  • Capture deferred work in follow-up tickets

Conventional Comments

issue [blocking]: Missing error handling for API call
If the API returns a 500 error, this will crash. Add try/catch.

security [blocking]: API endpoint is not authenticated
The /api/admin/users endpoint is missing auth middleware.

Load Read("${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/conventional-comments.md") for the full format, labels (praise, nitpick, suggestion, issue, question, security, bug, breaking), decorations ([blocking], [non-blocking], [if-minor]), and examples.


Review Process

1. Before Reviewing

Check Context:

  • Read the PR/MR description
  • Understand the purpose and scope
  • Review linked tickets or issues
  • Check CI/CD pipeline status

Verify Automated Checks:

  • Tests are passing
  • Linting has no errors
  • Type checking passes
  • Code coverage meets targets
  • No merge conflicts

Set Aside Time:

  • Small PR (< 200 lines): 15-30 minutes
  • Medium PR (200-500 lines): 30-60 minutes
  • Large PR (> 500 lines): 1-2 hours (or ask to split)

2. During Review

Follow a Pattern:

  1. High-Level Review (5-10 minutes)

    • Read PR description and understand intent
    • Skim all changed files to get overview
    • Verify approach makes sense architecturally
    • Check that changes align with stated purpose
  2. Detailed Review (20-45 minutes)

    • Line-by-line code review
    • Check logic, edge cases, error handling
    • Verify tests cover new code
    • Look for security vulnerabilities
    • Ensure code follows team conventions
  3. Testing Considerations (5-10 minutes)

    • Are tests comprehensive?
    • Do tests test the right things?
    • Are edge cases covered?
    • Is test data realistic?
  4. Documentation Check (5 minutes)

    • Are complex sections commented?
    • Is public API documented?
    • Are breaking changes noted?
    • Is README updated if needed?

3. After Reviewing

Provide Clear Decision:

  • Approve: Code is ready to merge
  • 💬 Comment: Feedback provided, no action required
  • 🔄 Request Changes: Issues must be addressed before merge

Respond to Author:

  • Answer questions promptly
  • Re-review after changes made
  • Approve when issues resolved
  • Thank author for addressing feedback

Review Checklists

General Code Quality

  • Readability: Code is easy to understand
  • Naming: Variables and functions have clear, descriptive names
  • Comments: Complex logic is explained
  • Formatting: Code follows team style guide
  • DRY: No unnecessary duplication
  • SOLID Principles: Code follows SOLID where applicable
  • Function Size: Functions are focused and < 50 lines
  • Cyclomatic Complexity: Functions have complexity < 10

Security

  • Authentication: Protected endpoints require auth
  • Authorization: Users can only access their own data
  • Input Sanitization: SQL injection, XSS prevented
  • Secrets Management: No hardcoded credentials or API keys
  • Encryption: Sensitive data encrypted at rest and in transit
  • Rate Limiting: Endpoints protected from abuse

Quick Start Guide

For Reviewers:

  1. Read PR description and understand intent
  2. Check that automated checks pass
  3. Do high-level review (architecture, approach)
  4. Do detailed review (logic, edge cases, tests)
  5. Use conventional comments for clear communication
  6. Provide decision: Approve, Comment, or Request Changes

For Authors:

  1. Write clear PR description
  2. Perform self-review before requesting review
  3. Ensure all automated checks pass
  4. Keep PR focused and reasonably sized (< 400 lines)
  5. Respond to feedback promptly and respectfully
  6. Make requested changes or explain reasoning

Skill Version: 2.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-01-08 Maintained by: AI Agent Hub Team

Related Skills

  • ork:architecture-patterns - Enforce testing and architectural best practices during code review
  • security-scanning - Automated security checks to complement manual review
  • ork:testing-unit - Unit testing patterns to verify during review

Rules

Each category has individual rule files in rules/ loaded on-demand:

CategoryRuleImpactKey Pattern
TypeScript Qualityrules/typescript-quality.mdHIGHNo any, Zod validation, exhaustive switches, React 19
Python Qualityrules/python-quality.mdHIGHPydantic v2, ruff, mypy strict, async timeouts
Security Baselinerules/security-baseline.mdCRITICALNo secrets, auth on endpoints, input validation
Lintingrules/linting-biome-setup.mdHIGHBiome setup, ESLint migration, gradual adoption
Lintingrules/linting-biome-rules.mdHIGHBiome config, type-aware rules, CI integration

Total: 5 rules across 4 categories

Available Scripts

  • scripts/review-pr.md - Dynamic PR review with auto-fetched GitHub data

    • Auto-fetches: PR title, author, state, changed files, diff stats, comments count
    • Usage: /ork:review-pr [PR-number]
    • Requires: GitHub CLI (gh)
    • Uses $ARGUMENTS and !command for live PR data
  • assets/review-feedback-template.md - Static review feedback template

  • assets/pr-template.md - PR description template

Stats
Parent Repo Stars128
Parent Repo Forks14
Last CommitMar 20, 2026