review

SkillDev tools

Lets your agent review code changes, fix safe issues automatically, and report bugs.

Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.

Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.

Then ask your AI: use the review skill

About this capability

Review code changes, auto-fix safe issues, and report bugs

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by elie222/inbox-zero in .claude/skills/review/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

Code review with craftsman's eye. Auto-fix obvious issues, surface real bugs.

Reference @AGENTS.md for project conventions. Apply those patterns as review criteria.

Critical Rules

  1. AUTO-FIX safe obvious issues - Don't ask permission for no-brainers
  2. HUNT FOR BUGS - Logic errors, edge cases, race conditions first
  3. WAIT for confirmation - On BUG/FIX, don't execute until user says "go"
  4. BE CONCISE - One-line items, choices at END
  5. USE clickable links - path/to/file.ts:123 format only

Categories

CategoryWhatAction
[BUG]Logic errors, security, data loss, race conditionsReport → wait
[FIX]Type gaps, missing error handling, test gaps, slopReport → wait
[AUTO]Unused imports, dead code, console.log, typosFix immediately
[CONSIDER]Refactors, style opinions, nice-to-haveMention only

AUTO Criteria (all must be true)

  • Zero risk of breaking behavior
  • <5 seconds to fix
  • No judgment call needed

AUTO examples:

  • Unused imports/variables
  • Trailing whitespace
  • Console.log (unless intentional)
  • Dead/unreachable code
  • Obvious typos in comments/strings

NOT AUTO (needs confirmation):

  • Removing "unused" function (might be used elsewhere)
  • Type changes (might change behavior)
  • Any logic change
  • AI slop removal (might be intentional)

Project-Specific Checks

Always ask these questions during review:

Can this be simpler?

  • Is there unnecessary abstraction? Could this be done with less code?
  • Are there helpers/utils being created for one-time operations?
  • Over-engineered error handling, feature flags, or backwards-compat shims?
  • Unnecessary wrapper components or HOCs?

Can we remove any code?

  • Dead code, unused exports, commented-out blocks?
  • Re-exports or barrel files (we don't use barrel files)?
  • Backwards-compatibility hacks like renamed _vars or // removed comments?
  • Types/interfaces exported but only used in the same file?

Is it DRY without premature abstraction?

  • Obvious copy-paste of entire functions or large blocks → refactor
  • But 2-3 similar lines are fine — don't abstract too early
  • The wrong abstraction is worse than duplication

Is it structured correctly?

  • Colocate page-specific components next to their page (not in a nested components/ subfolder — we don't do that in route directories)
  • General/reusable components go in apps/web/components/
  • API routes: One resource per route, not combined data endpoints
  • Server actions for mutations, not POST routes
  • Validation schemas in separate .validation.ts files
  • Helper functions at the bottom of files, not the top
  • All imports at the top — no mid-file dynamic imports
  • No barrel files (index.ts re-exporting everything from a folder)

Does it follow project patterns? (see @AGENTS.md)

  • GET routes wrapped with withAuth or withEmailAccount?
  • Response types exported as Awaited<ReturnType<typeof fn>>?
  • SWR for client-side data fetching?
  • LoadingContent for loading/error states?
  • useAction from next-safe-action/hooks for form submissions?
  • Zod schemas with z.infer<typeof schema> instead of duplicate interfaces?
  • Self-documenting code? Comments explain "why" not "what"?
  • logger.trace() for PII fields?
  • Test changes follow .claude/skills/testing/SKILL.md?
  • Tests avoid mocking @/utils/logger?
  • If draft-generation prompt, retrieval, routing, or post-processing changed, was apps/web/utils/ai/reply/draft-attribution.ts DRAFT_PIPELINE_VERSION bumped for analytics?

Learnings check

  • Did this change teach us something that should be captured in AGENTS.md or this review file?
  • Are there patterns that keep coming up that we should document?

Mindset

Inheritance Test: Would I curse the previous author? Understand at 2am?

Pride Test: Would I put my name on this?

Workflow

Step 0: Determine Scope & Group Files

Auto-detect: conversation changes → staged → current diff

git diff --cached --name-only  # or HEAD

Group files by area/dependency:

Batch 1: apps/web/app/api/agent/* (3 files)
Batch 2: apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/agent/* (related components)
Batch 3: apps/web/utils/actions/* (2 files)

Output: Found X files in Y batches

──────────

Step 1: Create Review Plan (TODO)

BEFORE reading any file content, create todo list:

- [ ] Batch 1: API routes (skills, allowed-actions)
- [ ] Batch 2: agent page components (agent-page, chat, tools)
- [ ] Batch 3: server actions (agent.ts, agent.validation.ts)

Use todo_write to track batches.

──────────

Step 2: Process Each Batch

For each batch:

  1. Read diff for batch files only (git diff --cached -- path/to/files)
  2. Review & categorize issues
  3. Auto-fix [AUTO] items immediately
  4. Note [BUG]/[FIX]/[CONSIDER] items
  5. Mark batch complete in todos

Issue format:

1. **[BUG]** Race condition in concurrent saves — `src/db.ts:45`
2. **[FIX]** Missing error boundary — `src/App.tsx:12`
3. **[CONSIDER]** Extract to custom hook — `src/Form.tsx:34`

After each batch:

Batch 1 done: AUTO: 2 fixed | BUG: 1 | FIX: 2

──────────

Step 3: Summary & Options (After All Batches)

Total: BUG: X | FIX: X | CONSIDER: X (auto-fixed: Y)

Issues:
1. [BUG] ... — `path:line`
2. [FIX] ... — `path:line`

What to fix?
- a) BUG + FIX [recommended]
- b) BUG only
- c) All including CONSIDER
- d) Custom (e.g., "1,3")

I'll assume a) if you don't specify.

Learnings:
- Any patterns worth adding to AGENTS.md?
- Any new review checks to add to this file?

STOP. Wait for selection.

──────────

Step 4: Execute Fixes

Process fixes batch-by-batch (same grouping):

  1. Update todo list with selected fixes
  2. For each batch:
    • Read relevant file(s)
    • Apply fixes
    • Mark complete
  3. Run linter if applicable

Severity Guide

BUG (Logic/Security):

  • Business logic errors, wrong conditions
  • Race conditions, data loss
  • Security: injection, XSS, exposed secrets
  • API routes missing auth middleware
  • Null/undefined not handled
  • Edge cases that break

FIX (Quality):

  • Type safety gaps, unsafe casts
  • Missing error handling
  • Test coverage gaps
  • AI slop (WHAT comments, unnecessary try/catch, as any)
  • Missing validation
  • Combined API routes that should be separate
  • POST routes used for mutations instead of server actions
  • Barrel files / re-export patterns

CONSIDER (Opinions):

  • Refactoring opportunities
  • "I would do it differently"
  • Performance micro-optimizations
  • Style preferences

Git Commands

# Staged
git diff --cached
git diff --cached --name-only

# All uncommitted
git diff HEAD
git diff HEAD --name-only

Error Handling

ErrorResponse
No changes"Check git status or specify files"
File not foundList available, ask to specify
Binary filesSkip, mention in summary
Large file (>10k)"Review specific sections?"

Signals

GitHub stars
12k
Forks
2k
Last commit
Sep 2026
Hacker News mentions
20
Advanced
Catalog kind
skill
Gateway key
review-elie222
Source
github.com/elie222/inbox-zero