review-code
Review code for quality, correctness, and fit. Use when the user wants judgment on code that already exists — their own changes, a teammate's patch, a PR, branch, commit, diff, staged changes, or one or more files to look over. Activate on requests like review, look over, sanity check, critique, code review, or 'is this good?' The key signal is that the user wants evaluation of existing code and its tradeoffs, not implementation, debugging, or explanation. This skill works independently, but when plans, specs, task artifacts, or prior discussion exist, use them to understand why the code exists before judging it.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/avibebuilder/claude-prime /tmp/review-code && cp -r /tmp/review-code/.claude/skills/review-code ~/.claude/skills/review-codeSKILL.md
ultrathink
## Process
Critique only — no fixes or implementation. Understand *why* the code exists before judging it.
### 1. Identify the review target
Prefer in order: explicit `<target>`, changes made in this conversation, working diff. If unclear, ask.
Then gather enough context (PR/issue text, plans, surrounding code) to avoid misreads. Don't turn every review into archaeology — if a missing detail would materially change judgment, ask briefly.
### 2. Match depth to risk
- **Quick** — small, local, low-risk; keep output brief
- **Standard** — normal feature or refactor
- **Deep** — risky, cross-cutting, security-sensitive, or surprising
### 3. Review flow first, then details
Understand how important parts work before commenting line by line. Focus on load-bearing logic, edge cases, scope drift, and intentional tradeoffs.
### 4. Report
For each finding: file path + line, why it matters, severity.
- **Critical** — correctness, safety, broken edge cases, scope violations. Requires evidence in the code — speculative failure modes belong in Questions.
- **Suggestion** — non-blocking improvements
- **Question** — missing context or unconfirmable concerns
If something looks odd but context supports it, acknowledge rather than flag.
### 5. Output format
```
## Code Review: [scope]
**Verdict: {Approve | Request Changes | Reject}**
### Inferred Intent
[Only when context supports it]
### Critical Issues (Must Fix)
- `path/to/file:line` — concise description. Why: [reason]
### Suggestions (Nice to Have)
- `path/to/file:line` — concise description
### Questions
- [Clarifications on intent or tradeoffs]
### Summary
[1-2 sentences]
```
Include only sections with content. Always include Verdict and Summary.
## Boundaries
- Read surrounding code when the diff alone is misleading.
- Deliberate decisions (inline comments, user-stated tradeoffs) are not defects — raise as Question only with concrete evidence.
- Don't judge by personal preference when project fit explains the choice.
- Name the right approach ("needs parameterized queries") but don't write corrected code.
## Target
<target>$ARGUMENTS</target>Browser automation CLI for AI agents. Use when the user needs to interact with websites, including navigating pages, filling forms, clicking buttons, taking screenshots, extracting data, testing web apps, or automating any browser task. Triggers include requests to "open a website", "fill out a form", "click a button", "take a screenshot", "scrape data from a page", "test this web app", "login to a site", "automate browser actions", or any task requiring programmatic web interaction.
Answer questions about code, architecture, and technical decisions — no implementation. Trigger on questions asking 'why', 'what does this do', 'what is the purpose of', 'explain', 'what's the difference', 'compare', or 'what are the tradeoffs' — even when referencing specific files, code snippets, or inline code. The key signal is the user wants to UNDERSTAND something, not change it. Do NOT trigger for requests to build, fix, plan, review, research, or add/modify code.
Implement, build, create, or add any feature, endpoint, page, component, or functionality. Use this skill whenever the user asks you to write new code or make code changes — whether it's adding an API endpoint, building a UI page, creating an export feature, wiring up a webhook, implementing a search/filter, or any other hands-on coding task. This is the default skill for all 'build this', 'add this', 'create this', 'wire up', 'implement' requests. Covers the full cycle: clarify requirements, plan if needed, write code, verify, and review. Do NOT use for pure research, debugging, documentation, or explanation — only when the user wants working code delivered.
Use when the user wants to save knowledge as a file so others don't have to rediscover it — \"turn this into a doc\", \"write this up\", \"document how X works\", \"we figured this out and want to capture it\", \"nobody should have to figure this out again\". Covers any request to create or update durable written artifacts: onboarding guides, runbooks, ADRs, API docs, architecture notes, postmortems, changelogs, setup guides. The trigger: user wants knowledge captured in a file for future reference, not just a conversation. Do NOT use when still making decisions (→ give-plan), just asking for explanation without a file (→ ask), or writing code (→ cook).
Investigate unexpected behavior and mysterious bugs. Use when the cause of a problem is unknown and the user needs to understand WHY something is happening — symptoms like: sudden unexplained changes in metrics or behavior, works locally but not in staging/production, inconsistent or intermittent failures, correct code producing wrong results, operations succeeding but having no effect, environment-specific failures, duplicate executions, stale data, or any \"why did this change?\" or \"why is this happening?\" situation. Covers infrastructure anomalies (cache hit rates dropping, latency spikes, queue behavior shifts) as well as code bugs. The key signal is confusion about root cause, not a request to implement a known fix. Do NOT use for feature requests, known fixes, planning, or documentation tasks.
Brainstorms and debates approaches, then drives toward an actionable decision. Use whenever someone needs a thinking partner for a decision they're facing: 'discuss', 'debate', 'brainstorm', 'weigh options', 'tradeoffs', 'should I do X or Y', 'help me decide', 'I'm torn between', 'sanity check my thinking', or 'what do you think about'. The user must be asking for help reasoning through a choice — not asking to build, fix, evaluate, plan, or modify something (even if the topic involves this skill itself). Picks the right decision lens, surfaces tradeoffs and blind spots, pushes back when reasoning is genuinely weak, and never implements.
Fetch up-to-date documentation for any library, framework, API, or service into context. Use when the user wants to look up API references, check function signatures or required fields, find feature-specific docs, or verify how an external tool actually works. Triggers for queries about third-party libraries like Stripe, SQLAlchemy, Tailwind, FastAPI, shadcn, Drizzle, Hono, Better Auth — any time the answer lives in official docs rather than in the project codebase. Use this instead of guessing from trained knowledge, which is stale.
Fix bugs and broken behavior when there is enough evidence to act on a repair path. Use for errors, crashes, incorrect results, API failures (500, 404, 403), CORS problems, database exceptions, broken rendering, duplicated or wrong data, off-by-one mistakes, timezone/date bugs, broken forms, config-caused runtime failures, and regressions. Trigger when the user wants the bug repaired and the conversation already contains a clear failing area, a reproducible failing test, a concrete error path, or a prior diagnosis to implement. Do NOT use for new features, pure explanation, architecture discussion, broad research, or bug reports where the main need is figuring out why the behavior happens — use diagnose for that.