SkillsAdd

smithery.ai

classifying-review-findings

Use this skill when categorizing code review findings into severity levels. Apply when determining which emoji and label to use for PR comments, deciding if an issue should be flagged at all, or classifying findings as CRITICAL, IMPORTANT, DEBT, SUGGESTED, or QUESTION.

First seen Apr 23, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add https://smithery.ai
View on skills.sh ↗ Website ↗

Also in this package

Other skills from smithery.ai · top by installs.

npx skills add https://smithery.ai
smithery-ai-cli 7.8K frontend-design 6.2K skill-creator 2.5K ck:ui-ux-pro-max 1.3K pdf 1.2K xlsx 966 pptx 894 docx 884 webapp-testing 1 web-design-reviewer 657

Browse all from smithery.ai

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

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 2,718 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 304 B

History

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

SKILL.md

Classifying Review Findings

Severity Categories

Emoji Category Criteria
❌ CRITICAL Will break, crash, expose data, or violate requirements
⚠️ IMPORTANT Missing error handling, unhandled edge cases, could cause bugs
♻️ DEBT Duplicates patterns, violates conventions, needs rework within 6 months
🎨 SUGGESTED Measurably improves security, reduces complexity by 3+, eliminates bug classes
❓ QUESTION Requires human knowledge - unclear requirements, intent, or system conflicts

ALWAYS use hybrid emoji + text format for each finding (if multiple severities apply, use the most severe: ❌ > ⚠️ > ♻️ > 🎨 > ❓):

Before Classifying

Verify ALL three:

  1. Can you trace the execution path showing incorrect behavior?
  2. Is this handled elsewhere (error boundaries, middleware, validators)?
  3. Are you certain about framework behavior and language semantics?

If any answer is "no" or "unsure" → DO NOT classify as a finding.

Not Valid Findings (Reject)

  • Praise ("great implementation")
  • Vague suggestions ("could be simpler")
  • Style preferences without enforced standard
  • Naming nitpicks unless actively misleading
  • PR metadata issues (title, description, test plan) - handled by summary skill, not classified here
  • Renovate/Dependabot minor/patch updates to existing dependencies with passing CI — these are routine Stage 5 monitoring, not reviewable findings

Suggested Improvements (🎨) Criteria

Only suggest improvements that provide measurable value:

  1. Security gain - Eliminates entire vulnerability class (SQL injection, XSS, etc.)
  2. Complexity reduction - Reduces cyclomatic complexity by 3+, eliminates nesting level
  3. Bug prevention - Makes entire category of bugs impossible (type safety, null safety)
  4. Performance gain - Reduces O(n²) to O(n), eliminates N+1 queries (provide evidence)

Provide concrete metrics:

  • ❌ "This could be simpler"
  • ✅ "This has cyclomatic complexity of 12; extracting validation logic would reduce to 6"

If you can't measure the improvement, don't suggest it.