simhacker/moollm

code-review

Systematic code analysis with evidence collection

First seen Jan 26, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add simhacker/moollm --skill code-review

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from simhacker/moollm · top by installs.

npx skills add simhacker/moollm

Browse all from simhacker/moollm

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Repository health

Stars 52
License LICENSE
Default branch main
Open issues 1
Status Active

Skill metadata

Parsed from SKILL.md frontmatter.

Allowed toolsread_file, run_terminal_cmd

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 3,638 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 68 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 14 installs

SKILL.md

Code Review

"Read with intent. Question with purpose. Document with care."

Systematic code analysis with evidence collection. Code review IS an [adventure](../adventure/) — the codebase is the dungeon, findings are clues.

Review Process

READ → NOTE ISSUES → CLASSIFY → REPORT

Step 1: Setup

  1. Create REVIEW.yml
  2. Identify files to review
  3. Define focus areas

Step 2: Overview

  1. List all changed files
  2. Read PR/commit description
  3. Note initial impressions

Step 3: Deep Review

For each file:

  1. Read the code
  2. Check against criteria
  3. Note findings
  4. Run relevant checks

Step 4: Verification

  1. Run tests
  2. Run linters
  3. Check regressions

Step 5: Synthesize

  1. Compile findings
  2. Prioritize issues
  3. Generate REVIEW.md
  4. State recommendation

Finding Severity

Level Symbol Meaning Action
Blocking 🚫 Must fix before merge Request changes
Important ⚠️ Should fix or explain Request changes
Minor 💡 Nice to fix Comment only
Praise 🎉 Good work! Celebrate

Finding Types

  • Security — Injection, auth, sensitive data
  • Correctness — Logic errors, edge cases
  • Performance — N+1 queries, memory leaks
  • Maintainability — Clarity, DRY, naming
  • Style — Formatting, conventions

Review Checklist

Security

  • Input validation
  • Output encoding
  • Authentication/authorization
  • Sensitive data handling
  • Injection vulnerabilities
  • Timing attacks

Correctness

  • Logic errors
  • Edge cases handled
  • Null/undefined handling
  • Error handling
  • Race conditions
  • Resource cleanup

Maintainability

  • Code clarity
  • Appropriate comments
  • Consistent naming
  • DRY (no duplication)
  • Single responsibility
  • Testability

Performance

  • Algorithmic complexity
  • Memory usage
  • Database queries
  • Caching
  • Unnecessary operations

Core Files

REVIEW.yml

review:
  name: "PR #123: Add user authentication"
  status: "in_progress"
  
findings:
  blocking:
    - id: "B1"
      file: "src/auth/login.ts"
      line: 45
      type: "security"
      summary: "Timing attack vulnerability"
      
  important: []
  minor: []
  praise: []

verification:
  tests: { ran: true, passed: true }
  linter: { ran: true, passed: false, issues: 3 }

REVIEW.md

Formatted document with:

  • Summary and counts
  • Issues by severity
  • Verification results
  • Recommendation

Verification Commands

tests:
  - "npm test"
  - "pytest"
  - "go test ./..."
  
linters:
  - "npm run lint"
  - "flake8"
  - "golangci-lint run"

Recommendation Output

Outcome Meaning
approve Good to merge
request_changes Has blocking/important issues
comment Minor feedback only

See Also

  • [rubric](../rubric/) — Explicit scoring criteria for code quality
  • [evaluator](../evaluator/) — Independent assessment pattern
  • [adversarial-committee](../adversarial-committee/) — Multiple reviewers debating findings