Claude-toolbox review-code
git clone https://github.com/serpro69/claude-toolbox
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/serpro69/claude-toolbox "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/klaude-plugin/skills/review-code" ~/.claude/skills/serpro69-claude-toolbox-review-code && rm -rf "$T"
klaude-plugin/skills/review-code/SKILL.mdSOLID Code Review
Overview
Perform a structured review of the current git changes with focus on SOLID, architecture, removal candidates, and security risks. Default to review-only output unless the user asks to implement changes.
Conventions
Read capy knowledge base conventions at shared-capy-knowledge-protocol.md.
Profile detection — the set of reference checklists loaded for a given diff — is delegated to the shared procedure at shared-profile-detection.md. The workflow below invokes it in Step 2 and uses the resulting
(profile, checklist) list to drive Steps 3–4.
Required Outputs
Before declaring the review complete, verify all outputs are delivered:
- Review report presented to user
- P0/P1 systemic findings indexed as
(skip if no qualifying findings)kk:review-findings - Next steps confirmation from user
Indexing is owned by this skill — callers (e.g.,
implement) do NOT duplicate it.
Review Modes
Standard Mode (/kk:review-code
)
/kk:review-codeReviews code in the main conversation context. Fast, single-pass review using the workflow below.
Isolated Mode (/kk:review-code:isolated
)
/kk:review-code:isolatedDelegates detection to independent reviewers that did not write the code, then annotates their findings with author context. Two parallel reviewers: a
code-reviewer sub-agent and pal codereview (external model in native format). Produces a report organized by agreement level with corroborated findings highlighted.
- Cost: Higher (sub-agent + external model + annotation)
- Isolation: True — reviewers have zero authorship bias or session context
- Degradation: Graceful — if one reviewer fails, proceeds with the other; if both fail, suggests standard mode fallback
- Best for: When extra rigor is worth the cost (pre-merge, high-stakes changes)
See review-isolated.md for the isolated workflow.
Severity Levels
| Level | Name | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | Critical | Security vulnerability, data loss risk, correctness bug | Must block merge |
| P1 | High | Logic error, significant SOLID violation, performance regression | Should fix before merge |
| P2 | Medium | Code smell, maintainability concern, minor SOLID violation | Fix in this PR or create follow-up |
| P3 | Low | Style, naming, minor suggestion | Optional improvement |
Workflow
Mandatory ordering — methodology before evidence
The workflow below is strictly sequential. Do not read the diff's contents, re-read changed files, run
, or begin forming findings until you have completed profile detection and loaded every resolved checklist file. Until then, your only contact with the changes is capy_search
git diff --stat (filenames only) — enough to drive profile detection, but not enough to pattern-match findings.
This ordering is load-bearing, not stylistic. Reviewing from a diff before loading profile checklists is the known failure mode this skill is designed to prevent: the LLM has enough from the diff to produce plausible findings, and optimizes away the methodology if the workflow permits. See ADR 0004 for the rationale.
Phases (summary — the detailed procedure in review-process.md breaks presentation into three distinct numbered steps: present results, next-steps confirmation, verify outputs):
- Scope —
for filenames only (no content reads)git diff --stat - Detect active profiles — delegate to
; produce the list ofshared-profile-detection.md
records(profile, checklist) - Load profile review indexes — for each active profile, resolve its
; collect always-load + filename-evaluable conditionals now; defer content-evaluable conditionals to Step 6review-code/index.md - Read resolved checklists — read every
file collected in Step 3 into context(profile, checklist) - Read the diff and re-read changed files — now, with methodology loaded; also run
forcapy_search
andkk:review-findingskk:lang-idioms - Resolve content-evaluable conditional entries — for each deferred entry from Step 3, evaluate the predicate against the file content read in Step 5; load any newly-matching checklists into context
- Apply checklists — iterate the full resolved list (Steps 3 + 6); emit findings grouped by
(profile, checklist) - Self-check and confidence assessment
- Index findings — capy index systemic P0/P1 patterns as
kk:review-findings - Present results with next steps
See review-process.md for the detailed step-by-step process.
Invocation
Standard mode:
/kk:review-code
Isolated mode with independent sub-agents:
/kk:review-code:isolated