Claude-skill-registry code-review-repo

Review local codebase for bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance using multi-agent analysis

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/data/code-review-repo" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-code-review-repo && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: skills/data/code-review-repo/SKILL.md

Local Code Review

Review the entire local codebase for bugs, issues, and CLAUDE.md compliance.

Process

Gather CLAUDE.md files: Use a Haiku agent to find all CLAUDE.md files in the repository (root and subdirectories)
Identify source files: Determine which files to review:
- Include:
```
.ts
```
  ,
```
.tsx
```
  ,
```
.js
```
  ,
```
.jsx
```
  ,
```
.py
```
  ,
```
.rs
```
  ,
```
.go
```
  and similar source files
- Exclude:
```
node_modules/
```
  ,
```
dist/
```
  ,
```
.git/
```
  , vendor directories, generated files
Multi-agent review: Launch 5 parallel Sonnet agents to independently review the codebase. Each agent returns a list of issues with reasons:
- Agent #1: Audit for CLAUDE.md compliance. Check that code follows guidelines in all relevant CLAUDE.md files.
- Agent #2: Shallow bug scan. Look for obvious bugs, error handling issues, and logic errors. Focus on significant bugs, not nitpicks.
- Agent #3: Git history context. Use git blame and history to identify patterns, recent changes, and potential issues in light of historical context.
- Agent #4: Previous PR comments. Check closed PRs that touched these files for any feedback that might apply.
- Agent #5: Code comment compliance. Ensure code follows any guidance in TODO, FIXME, NOTE, or other code comments.
Confidence scoring: For each issue found, launch a parallel Haiku agent to score confidence (0-100):
- 0: False positive, doesn't hold up to scrutiny
- 25: Might be real, but unverified. Stylistic issues not in CLAUDE.md
- 50: Real but minor, rarely hit in practice
- 75: Verified real issue, important, directly impacts functionality or mentioned in CLAUDE.md
- 100: Definitely real, frequently hit, evidence confirms
Filter: Only report issues with score >= 80

False Positive Examples

Avoid flagging:

Issues that linters/typecheckers catch (imports, types, formatting)
General quality issues unless in CLAUDE.md
Code with lint-ignore comments for that specific issue
Pre-existing issues unrelated to recent changes
Pedantic nitpicks a senior engineer wouldn't mention

Output Format

Code review

Found N issues:

Brief description (CLAUDE.md says "...")
```
file/path.ts:42
```
Brief description (bug due to missing error handling)
```
file/path.ts:88-95
```

Or if no issues:

Code review (no issues)

No issues found. Checked for bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance.