Free SKILL.md scraped from GitHub. Clone the repo or copy the file directly into your Claude Code skills directory.
npx versuz@latest install kevinzai-commander-commander-cowork-plugin-skills-ccc-code-reviewgit clone https://github.com/KevinZai/commander.gitcp commander/SKILL.MD ~/.claude/skills/kevinzai-commander-commander-cowork-plugin-skills-ccc-code-review/SKILL.md--- name: ccc-code-review description: "[C:plugin] — \"Review code changes for security, performance, correctness, and maintainability. Use when: 'review code', 'PR review', 'check changes', 'review my diff', 'is this…" allowed-tools: - Read - Write - Edit - Bash - Glob - Grep - Agent - AskUserQuestion argument-hint: "<PR URL, file path, or diff>" --- # /ccc-code-review > Placeholders like ~~source control refer to connected tools. See [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md). Review code changes with a structured lens across four dimensions: Security, Performance, Correctness, Maintainability. Quick Mode reviews the current diff. Power Mode runs a full 4-dimension scored review. ## Quick Mode (default) If an argument is provided (file path, PR URL, or diff), review it immediately. If no argument, run: ```bash git diff HEAD~1 ``` and review the most recent change. If the working tree has unstaged changes, prefer `git diff` instead. Highlight: - Critical issues (must fix before merge) - High issues (should fix) - Suggestions (nice to have) Limit to 20 most important findings. Skip minor style nits unless `--style` flag is passed. ## Power Mode Activate by passing `--power` or `detailed`. Full 4-dimension review with scores (1-10): ### Security (weight: 35%) - SQL injection, XSS, CSRF - Authentication and authorization flaws - Secrets or credentials in code - Input validation gaps - SSRF, path traversal, insecure deserialization ### Performance (weight: 25%) - N+1 queries - Unnecessary memory allocations - Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths) - Missing indexes or unbounded queries - Resource leaks ### Correctness (weight: 25%) - Edge cases (null, empty input, overflow) - Race conditions and concurrency - Error handling and propagation - Off-by-one errors, type safety ### Maintainability (weight: 15%) - Naming clarity and single responsibility - Duplication, test coverage - Documentation for non-obvious logic **Overall score** = weighted average. Verdict: Approve (8+) / Request Changes (5-7) / Needs Discussion (<5). ## Delegating Large Reviews For reviews >500 lines of changes, use the Agent tool to delegate to the `reviewer` agent: - The reviewer agent runs in parallel across sections - Synthesizes findings into a single report - Catches issues a single pass might miss ## If Connectors Available If **~~source control** is connected: - Pull PR diff automatically from the URL — no copy-pasting - Check CI/test status before reviewing (fail fast on broken CI) - Post review comments directly to the PR via the source control MCP - Verify the PR addresses its linked issue requirements If **~~project tracker** is connected: - Link Critical/High findings to new bug issues automatically - Verify the PR description matches the linked ticket scope If **~~library docs** (Context7) is connected: - Verify API usage against current docs — catches deprecated methods - Check imports and signatures against live documentation If **~~knowledge base** is connected: - Check changes against team coding standards and style guides - Reference prior ADRs for architectural decisions ## Output Format ```markdown ## Code Review: [PR title or file] ### Summary [1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall quality] ### Issues | # | File | Line | Issue | Severity | |---|------|------|-------|----------| | 1 | auth.ts | 42 | JWT secret read from process.env without fallback | 🔴 Critical | | 2 | db.ts | 18 | N+1 query in getUserPosts loop | 🟠 High | | 3 | utils.ts | 91 | Magic number 86400 — use a named constant | 🟡 Medium | ### What Looks Good - [Positive observations — acknowledge the good] ### Verdict **[Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]** Score: [X/10] (Security: X | Performance: X | Correctness: X | Maintainability: X) ``` ## Tips 1. **Provide context** — "This handles PII" or "This is a hot path" focuses the review. 2. **Specify focus** — pass `--security` or `--performance` to narrow the lens. 3. **Include tests** — I'll check test coverage and quality alongside the implementation. 4. **Fix Critical first** — never merge with a Critical issue open, even under time pressure.