reviewing-code

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 94fd3401595c · 28 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publisherspencerpauly GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source folderspencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills/resources/reviewing-codeThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceCC0-1.0As the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict94fd3401595cA new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 87 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Perform a thorough code review focused on correctness, maintainability, performance, and best practices.

---
name: reviewing-code
description: Perform a thorough code review focused on correctness, maintainability, performance, and best practices.
---

# Code Review

Use this skill when the user asks for a code review, feedback on their code, or to check code quality.

## Steps

1. **Understand the change** — read the files or diff to understand what the code is supposed to do. Identify the scope (new feature, bug fix, refactor).

2. **Check correctness**
   - Does the code handle edge cases (empty input, null, zero, negative numbers)?
   - Are error states handled (try/catch, error boundaries, fallback UI)?
   - Does async code handle race conditions, cancellation, and timeouts?
   - Are there off-by-one errors in loops or array access?

3. **Check maintainability**
   - Are functions focused on a single responsibility?
   - Are variable and function names descriptive?
   - Is there unnecessary duplication that should be extracted?
   - Are magic numbers replaced with named constants?
   - Is the code complexity reasonable (deeply nested conditionals, long functions)?

4. **Check performance**
   - Are there N+1 query patterns in database access?
   - Are expensive computations or API calls happening in render loops?
   - Are large lists missing virtualization or pagination?
   - Are there missing indexes for common database queries?
   - Is memoization used appropriately (not over-applied)?

5. **Check type safety** (TypeScript projects)
   - Are there `any` types that should be narrowed?
   - Are function return types explicit for public APIs?
   - Are union types handled exhaustively?

6. **Check testing**
   - Are there tests for the new/changed code?
   - Do tests cover the happy path AND error cases?
   - Are tests isolated (no shared mutable state)?

7. **Provide feedback** — organize findings by severity:
   - **Must fix**: bugs, security issues, data loss risks
   - **Should fix**: performance issues, maintainability concerns
   - **Nit**: style preferences, minor suggestions

   For each finding, include the file, line, the issue, and a suggested fix.

## Notes

- Be constructive — explain *why* something is a problem, not just that it is.
- Acknowledge what's done well, not just what needs fixing.
- Don't bikeshed on style issues that a linter/formatter should handle.

Excerpt, first 2,317 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills
git -C awesome-cursor-skills checkout 94fd3401595c

Works in

1. 2026-10-28
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 94fd3401595c

Questions about reviewing-code

• github.com/spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills/tree/main/resource — the audited source at commit 94fd3401595c and every finding aboveObserved · 28 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology