Skip to content
Skillv1.0.0

qe-code-review-quality

Conduct context-driven code reviews focusing on quality, testability, and maintainability. Use when reviewing code, providing feedback, or establishing review practices.

by proffesor-for-testing(0) 0 installs
Free
Sign in to install

Free account. Installing gives you the manifest plus copy-paste snippets.

See reviews

About

Imported from proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe (.kiro/skills/qe-code-review-quality/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe --skill qe-code-review-quality. Copyright stays with the author.

Code Review Quality

<default_to_action> When reviewing code or establishing review practices:

  1. PRIORITIZE feedback: πŸ”΄ Blocker (must fix) β†’ 🟑 Major β†’ 🟒 Minor β†’ πŸ’‘ Suggestion
  2. FOCUS on: Bugs, security, testability, maintainability (not style preferences)
  3. ASK questions over commands: "Have you considered...?" > "Change this to..."
  4. PROVIDE context: Why this matters, not just what to change
  5. LIMIT scope: Review < 400 lines at a time for effectiveness

Quick Review Checklist:

  • Logic: Does it work correctly? Edge cases handled?
  • Security: Input validation? Auth checks? Injection risks?
  • Testability: Can this be tested? Is it tested?
  • Maintainability: Clear naming? Single responsibility? DRY?
  • Performance: O(nΒ²) loops? N+1 queries? Memory leaks?

Critical Success Factors:

  • Review the code, not the person
  • Catching bugs > nitpicking style
  • Fast feedback (< 24h) > thorough feedback </default_to_action>

Quick Reference Card

When to Use

  • PR code reviews
  • Pair programming feedback
  • Establishing team review standards
  • Mentoring developers

Feedback Priority Levels

Level Icon Meaning Action
Blocker πŸ”΄ Bug/security/crash Must fix before merge
Major 🟑 Logic issue/test gap Should fix before merge
Minor 🟒 Style/naming Nice to fix
Suggestion πŸ’‘ Alternative approach Consider for future

Review Scope Limits

Lines Changed Recommendation
< 200 Single review session
200-400 Review in chunks
> 400 Request PR split

What to Focus On

βœ… Review ❌ Skip
Logic correctness Formatting (use linter)
Security risks Naming preferences
Test coverage Architecture debates
Performance issues Style opinions
Error handling Trivial changes

Feedback Templates

Blocker (Must Fix)

πŸ”΄ **BLOCKER: SQL Injection Risk**

This query is vulnerable to SQL injection:
```javascript
db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`)

Fix: Use parameterized queries:

db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?', [userId])

Why: User input directly in SQL allows attackers to execute arbitrary queries.


### Major (Should Fix)
```markdown
🟑 **MAJOR: Missing Error Handling**

What happens if `fetchUser()` throws? The error bubbles up unhandled.

**Suggestion:** Add try/catch with appropriate error response:
```javascript
try {
  const user = await fetchUser(id);
  return user;
} catch (error) {
  logger.error('Failed to fetch user', { id, error });
  throw new NotFoundError('User not found');
}

### Minor (Nice to Fix)
```markdown
🟒 **minor:** Variable name could be clearer

`d` doesn't convey meaning. Consider `daysSinceLastLogin`.

Suggestion (Consider)

πŸ’‘ **suggestion:** Consider extracting this to a helper

This validation logic appears in 3 places. A `validateEmail()` helper would reduce duplication. Not blocking, but might be worth a follow-up PR.

Review Questions to Ask

Logic

  • What happens when X is null/empty/negative?
  • Is there a race condition here?
  • What if the API call fails?

Security

  • Is user input validated/sanitized?
  • Are auth checks in place?
  • Any secrets or PII exposed?

Testability

  • How would you test this?
  • Are dependencies injectable?
  • Is there a test for the happy path? Edge cases?

Maintainability

  • Will the next developer understand this?
  • Is this doing too many things?
  • Is there duplication we could reduce?

Agent-Assisted Reviews

// Comprehensive code review
await Task("Code Review", {
  prNumber: 123,
  checks: ['security', 'performance', 'testability', 'maintainability'],
  feedbackLevels: ['blocker', 'major', 'minor'],
  autoApprove: { maxBlockers: 0, maxMajor: 2 }
}, "qe-quality-analyzer");

// Security-focused review
await Task("Security Review", {
  prFiles: changedFiles,
  scanTypes: ['injection', 'auth', 'secrets', 'dependencies']
}, "qe-security-scanner");

// Test coverage review
await Task("Coverage Review", {
  prNumber: 123,
  requireNewTests: true,
  minCoverageDelta: 0
}, "qe-coverage-analyzer");

Agent Coordination Hints

Memory Namespace

aqe/code-review/
β”œβ”€β”€ review-history/*     - Past review decisions
β”œβ”€β”€ patterns/*           - Common issues by team/repo
β”œβ”€β”€ feedback-templates/* - Reusable feedback
└── metrics/*            - Review turnaround time

Fleet Coordination

const reviewFleet = await FleetManager.coordinate({
  strategy: 'code-review',
  agents: [
    'qe-quality-analyzer',    // Logic, maintainability
    'qe-security-scanner',    // Security risks
    'qe-performance-tester',  // Performance issues
    'qe-coverage-analyzer'    // Test coverage
  ],
  topology: 'parallel'
});

Review Etiquette

βœ… Do ❌ Don't
"Have you considered...?" "This is wrong"
Explain why it matters Just say "fix this"
Acknowledge good code Only point out negatives
Suggest, don't demand Be condescending
Review < 400 lines Review 2000 lines at once

Related Skills


Remember

Prioritize feedback: πŸ”΄ Blocker β†’ 🟑 Major β†’ 🟒 Minor β†’ πŸ’‘ Suggestion. Focus on bugs and security, not style. Ask questions, don't command. Review < 400 lines at a time. Fast feedback (< 24h) beats thorough feedback.

With Agents: Agents automate security, performance, and coverage checks, freeing human reviewers to focus on logic and design. Use agents for consistent, fast initial review.

Use it

Copy one of these into your project. Installing also returns the manifest and these snippets.

yaml
targets:
  - https://api.opensmartroute.ai/api/v1/registry/proffesor-for-testing-agentic-qe-qe-code-review-quality/manifest   # or paste the manifest below

Manifest

An Open Capability Manifest: the router reads it to know what this does, what it costs and when to pick it.

proffesor-for-testing-agentic-qe-qe-code-review-quality.ocm.jsonjson
{
  "ocm": "1",
  "id": "proffesor-for-testing-agentic-qe-qe-code-review-quality",
  "kind": "skill",
  "name": "qe-code-review-quality",
  "description": "Conduct context-driven code reviews focusing on quality, testability, and maintainability. Use when reviewing code, providing feedback, or establishing review practices.",
  "publisher": "proffesor-for-testing",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "capabilities": {
    "domains": [
      "coding"
    ],
    "tags": [
      "skill-md",
      "code-review",
      "feedback",
      "quality",
      "testability",
      "maintainability",
      "pr-review",
      "skills-sh"
    ],
    "languages": [
      "en"
    ]
  },
  "quality_prior": 0.6,
  "examples": [
    "Conduct context-driven code reviews focusing on quality, testability, and maintainability. Use when reviewing code, providing feedback, or establishing review practices."
  ],
  "primary": false,
  "metadata": {
    "source": {
      "provider": "skills.sh",
      "repository": "https://github.com/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe",
      "path": ".kiro/skills/qe-code-review-quality/SKILL.md",
      "ref": "HEAD",
      "url": "https://github.com/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/blob/HEAD/.kiro/skills/qe-code-review-quality/SKILL.md",
      "key": "proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/.kiro/skills/qe-code-review-quality/SKILL.md"
    }
  },
  "instructions": "# Code Review Quality\n\n<default_to_action>\nWhen reviewing code or establishing review practices:\n1. PRIORITIZE feedback: πŸ”΄ Blocker (must fix) β†’ 🟑 Major β†’ 🟒 Minor β†’ πŸ’‘ Suggestion\n2. FOCUS on: Bugs, security, testability, maintainability (not style preferences)\n3. ASK questions over commands: \"Have you considered...?\" > \"Change this to...\"\n4. PROVIDE context: Why this matters, not just what to change\n5. LIMIT scope: Review < 400 lines at a time for effectiveness\n\n**Quick Review Checklist:**\n- Logic: Does it work correctly? Edge cases handled?\n- Security: Input validation? Auth checks? Injection r",
  "cost": {
    "context_tokens": 1471
  }
}

Fetch it by URL: GET /api/v1/registry/proffesor-for-testing-agentic-qe-qe-code-review-quality/manifest?version=1.0.0

Reviews

Star ratings from people who tried it. One review per account; edit yours any time.

No reviews yet. Install it, try it, and be the first to rate it.