Code Review Skill
SkillAI & modelsStructured code review protocol for inspecting code quality against the full rule set. Use when auditing code written by yourself or another agent, during the /audit workflow, or when the user asks for a code review.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.
Then ask your AI: use the Code Review Skill skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by irahardianto/awesome-agv in .agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
Purpose
Systematically review code against the full antigravity rule set. Catches issues that linters miss: architectural violations, missing observability, business logic errors, pattern inconsistencies.
When to Invoke
- During the
/auditworkflow (as part of parallel subagent dispatch) - When user asks for a code review outside any workflow
- Best practice: Invoke in a fresh conversation (not the same one that authored the code) to avoid confirmation bias
Review Process
1. Scope the Review
Identify the files/features to review. Determine the review scope:
- Feature review — all files in a feature directory
- PR review — only changed files
- Full codebase audit — all features
2. Load the Rule Set
Read all applicable rules from .agents/rules/. Use rule-priority.md for severity classification.
3. Review Categories (Priority Order)
Review each file/feature against these categories, in order from rule-priority.md:
Critical (Must Fix)
- Security — injection, hardcoded secrets, broken auth
- Data loss — missing error handling on writes, no transaction boundaries
- Resource leaks — unclosed connections, missing cleanup
Major (Should Fix)
- Testability — I/O not behind interfaces, untested error paths
- Observability — missing logging on operations, no correlation IDs
- Error handling — empty catch blocks, swallowed errors
- Architecture — circular dependencies, wrong layer access
Minor (Nice to Fix)
- Pattern consistency — deviation from established codebase patterns
- Naming — unclear variable/function names
- Code organization — functions too long, mixed responsibilities
Enhancement (Backlog)
- Style — formatting issues or non-critical refactorings
- Documentation — missing comments on complex logic
4. Produce Findings
Output a structured findings document:
# Code Review: {Feature/Module Name}
Date: {date}
Reviewer: AI Agent (fresh context)
## Summary
- **Files reviewed:** N
- **Issues found:** N (X critical, Y major, Z minor, W enhancement)
## Critical Issues
- [ ] **[SEC]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
- [ ] **[DATA]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
## Major Issues
- [ ] **[TEST]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
- [ ] **[OBS]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
## Minor Issues
- [ ] **[PAT]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
## Enhancement Issues
- [ ] {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
## Rules Applied
List of rules referenced during this review.
5. Save the Report
When invoked via the /audit workflow, you MUST persist the findings to the repo:
Path: docs/audits/review-findings-{feature}-{YYYY-MM-DD}-{HHmm}.md
- Create
docs/audits/if it doesn't exist - Write the findings document to that path
- This makes the report accessible from other conversations and agents
When invoked as a standalone review (not via /audit), saving to docs/audits/ is recommended but optional.
6. Severity Tags
| Tag | Category | Rule Source |
|---|---|---|
[SEC] | Security | security-principles.md |
[DATA] | Data integrity | error-handling-principles.md |
[RES] | Resource leak | resources-and-memory-management-principles.md |
[TEST] | Testability | architectural-pattern.md, testing-strategy.md |
[OBS] | Observability | logging-and-observability-mandate.md |
[ERR] | Error handling | error-handling-principles.md |
[ARCH] | Architecture | architectural-pattern.md, project-structure.md |
[PAT] | Pattern consistency | code-organization-principles.md |
[INT] | Integration contract | api-design-principles.md |
[DB] | Database design | database-design-principles.md |
[CFG] | Configuration | configuration-management-principles.md |
[SPEC] | Spec compliance | structured-spec profiles |
7. Language-Specific Anti-Patterns
Load the anti-pattern checklist for the language(s) under review:
| Language | Anti-Patterns |
|---|---|
| Go | languages/go.md |
| TypeScript | languages/typescript.md |
| Python | languages/python.md |
| Rust | languages/rust.md |
| Java | languages/java.md |
| C# | languages/csharp.md |
| Swift | languages/swift.md |
| Flutter/Dart | languages/flutter.md |
| C++ | languages/cpp.md |
| Kotlin | languages/kotlin.md |
| PHP | languages/php.md |
| Ruby | languages/ruby.md |
Anti-patterns listed in language files are auto-fail — they require no judgment call. If the pattern exists in the code, it is a finding.
8. Cross-Boundary Checks
For full audits, cross-boundary concerns (integration contracts, database schema, configuration hygiene, dependency health, test coverage gaps) are checked via the dedicated MECE dimension scope cards in the /audit workflow (Dimension F & G) — defined in .agents/skills/code-audit/references/audit-dimensions.md.
When invoking this skill standalone (outside /audit), apply the applicable dimensions from that checklist manually and tag findings with [INT], [DB], or [CFG] as appropriate.
When structured specs exist in the repository (files with structured-spec YAML frontmatter), verify that:
- Contracts declared in specs (
CT-*) are implemented in code - Tests declared in specs (
TC-*) exist and pass - No requirement (
REQ-*) is unimplemented without documented rationale Tag findings with[SPEC].
Zero-Findings Guard: If this review produces fewer than 3 findings, you MUST produce a "Dimensions Covered" attestation section in the findings document, listing each cross-boundary dimension and the specific files or queries you examined. Only then may you declare a clean result.
Rule Compliance
This skill enforces all rules in .agents/rules/. Key references:
- Rule Priority @rule-priority.md (severity classification)
- Security Principles @security-principles.md
- Architectural Patterns @architectural-pattern.md
- Testing Strategy @testing-strategy.md
- Logging and Observability Mandate @logging-and-observability-mandate.md
- Error Handling Principles @error-handling-principles.md
Quick Reference Audit Checklist
Consolidated from rule-based checklists. Use as a rapid scan after detailed review.
Architecture (from architectural-pattern.md)
- I/O behind interfaces; pure business logic; dependencies point inward
Database (from database-design-principles.md)
- Parameterized queries; migrations reversible; indexes documented
Dependencies (from dependency-management-principles.md)
- Versions pinned; lock file committed; unused deps removed
Git (from git-workflow-principles.md)
- Conventional commits; no large binaries; .gitignore complete
Monitoring (from monitoring-and-alerting-principles.md)
- Health endpoint; key metrics instrumented; alerting rules defined
Performance (from performance-optimization-principles.md)
- No premature optimization; profiling before tuning; budgets defined
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 156
- Forks
- 53
- Last commit
- Aug 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
code-review-irahardianto- Source
- github.com/irahardianto/awesome-agv