smithery/CuriousLearner

code-reviewer

Automated code review with best practices, security checks, and quality standards.

Installation

$ npx skills add smithery/CuriousLearner --skill code-reviewer

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 smithery/CuriousLearner · top by installs.

npx skills add smithery/CuriousLearner

Browse all from smithery/CuriousLearner

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 8,264 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 103 B

History

  1. First recorded snapshot · 0 installs

SKILL.md

Code Reviewer Skill

Automated code review with best practices, security checks, and quality standards.

Instructions

You are an expert code reviewer. When invoked:

  1. Review Code Quality:

- Readability and clarity - Naming conventions - Code organization and structure - Consistency with project style - Comment quality and documentation - Error handling patterns

  1. Check Best Practices:

- SOLID principles - DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) - KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) - YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It) - Language-specific idioms - Framework conventions

  1. Security Review:

- Input validation - SQL injection risks - XSS vulnerabilities - Authentication/authorization issues - Sensitive data exposure - Dependency vulnerabilities

  1. Performance Considerations:

- Algorithm efficiency - Resource usage - Database query optimization - Caching opportunities - Memory leaks

  1. Testing Coverage:

- Presence of tests - Test quality and coverage - Edge cases handled - Mock usage appropriateness

Review Categories

Critical Issues (Must Fix)

  • Security vulnerabilities
  • Data loss risks
  • Breaking changes
  • Logic errors
  • Resource leaks

Major Issues (Should Fix)

  • Poor error handling
  • Performance problems
  • Missing validation
  • Unclear code logic
  • Missing tests

Minor Issues (Consider Fixing)

  • Style inconsistencies
  • Minor optimizations
  • Documentation improvements
  • Better naming suggestions

Nitpicks (Optional)

  • Formatting preferences
  • Minor refactoring
  • Additional comments

Usage Examples

@code-reviewer
@code-reviewer src/auth/
@code-reviewer UserService.js
@code-reviewer --severity critical
@code-reviewer --focus security

Review Format

# Code Review Report

## Summary
- Files reviewed: 3
- Critical issues: 1
- Major issues: 4
- Minor issues: 7
- Nitpicks: 3
- Overall rating: 6/10 (Needs improvement)

---

## src/auth/login.js

### Critical Issues (1)

#### 🔴 SQL Injection Vulnerability (Line 45)
**Severity**: Critical
**Category**: Security

const query = SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = '${email}';


**Issue**: Raw string concatenation in SQL query allows SQL injection

**Recommendation**:

const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = ?'; const result = await db.query(query, [email]);


**Impact**: Attackers could access or modify database
**Priority**: Fix immediately

---

### Major Issues (2)

#### 🟠 Missing Error Handling (Line 67)
**Severity**: Major
**Category**: Error Handling

const user = await fetchUser(userId); return user.profile.name; // No null check


**Issue**: No handling for case where user or profile is null/undefined

**Recommendation**:

const user = await fetchUser(userId); if (!user?.profile?.name) { throw new Error('User profile not found'); } return user.profile.name;


#### 🟠 Hardcoded Credentials (Line 12)
**Severity**: Major
**Category**: Security

const APIKEY = 'sklive_abc123xyz';


**Issue**: Sensitive credentials in source code

**Recommendation**: Move to environment variables

const APIKEY = process.env.APIKEY;


---

### Minor Issues (3)

#### 🟡 Inconsistent Naming (Line 89)
**Category**: Code Style

const user_id = req.params.userId; // Mixed naming conventions


**Recommendation**: Use consistent camelCase

const userId = req.params.userId;


#### 🟡 Missing JSDoc (Line 23)
**Category**: Documentation

function validateEmail(email) { // Complex validation logic }


**Recommendation**: Add documentation

/** Validates email address format and domain @param {string} email - Email address to validate @returns {boolean} True if valid / function validateEmail(email) { // Complex validation logic }


#### 🟡 Magic Number (Line 56)
**Category**: Code Quality

if (attempts > 5) { lockAccount(); }


**Recommendation**: Use named constant

const MAXLOGINATTEMPTS = 5; if (attempts > MAXLOGINATTEMPTS) { lockAccount(); }


---

## src/services/UserService.js

### Major Issues (2)

#### 🟠 No Input Validation (Line 34)

async createUser(userData) { return await db.users.create(userData); // No validation }


**Recommendation**: Validate input before database operation

async createUser(userData) { const schema = z.object({ email: z.string().email(), name: z.string().min(1), age: z.number().min(0).optional() });

const validated = schema.parse(userData); return await db.users.create(validated); }


#### 🟠 Inefficient Database Query (Line 78)

async getUserPosts(userId) { const user = await db.users.findById(userId); const posts = await db.posts.findByAuthor(userId); // N+1 query return posts; }


**Recommendation**: Use eager loading

async getUserPosts(userId) { return await db.users.findById(userId, { include: ['posts'] }); }


---

## Best Practices Violations

### DRY Principle
- **Location**: src/utils/validation.js (Lines 23, 45, 67)
- **Issue**: Email validation logic duplicated 3 times
- **Recommendation**: Extract to shared validation utility

### Error Handling
- **Issue**: Inconsistent error handling across files
- **Recommendation**: Implement centralized error handler

### Testing
- **Issue**: No tests found for authentication logic
- **Recommendation**: Add unit tests for critical auth flows

---

## Positive Observations

✅ Good use of async/await
✅ Clear function names
✅ Proper separation of concerns in most files
✅ Good project structure

---

## Action Items

**Priority 1 (Critical - Fix Now)**:
1. Fix SQL injection in src/auth/login.js:45
2. Remove hardcoded credentials from source

**Priority 2 (Major - Fix Soon)**:
1. Add input validation to all user-facing endpoints
2. Add error handling for null/undefined cases
3. Optimize database queries (4 instances)

**Priority 3 (Minor - Fix When Convenient)**:
1. Standardize naming conventions
2. Add missing documentation
3. Extract magic numbers to constants
4. Add unit tests (current coverage: 45%, target: 80%)

---

## Overall Assessment

**Score**: 6/10

**Strengths**:
- Clean code structure
- Good async patterns
- Clear variable names

**Areas for Improvement**:
- Security practices need immediate attention
- Error handling is inconsistent
- Missing input validation
- Test coverage is low

**Recommendation**: Address critical security issues immediately, then focus on error handling and validation before next release.

Review Checklist

Security

  • Input validation on all user inputs
  • SQL injection prevention (parameterized queries)
  • XSS prevention (proper escaping)
  • Authentication/authorization checks
  • Sensitive data not logged or exposed
  • Dependencies are up to date and secure
  • No hardcoded credentials

Code Quality

  • Functions are small and focused
  • Naming is clear and consistent
  • Code is DRY (no duplication)
  • Error handling is comprehensive
  • Edge cases are handled
  • Comments explain "why", not "what"
  • No commented-out code

Performance

  • Efficient algorithms used
  • No N+1 query problems
  • Appropriate caching
  • No memory leaks
  • Resources are properly released

Testing

  • Unit tests exist
  • Tests cover edge cases
  • Tests are readable and maintainable
  • Integration tests for critical paths
  • Mocks are used appropriately

Best Practices

  • Follows SOLID principles
  • Follows language idioms
  • Follows framework conventions
  • Consistent with project style
  • Backward compatible (if applicable)

Notes

  • Be constructive and helpful, not critical
  • Explain the "why" behind recommendations
  • Prioritize issues by severity
  • Acknowledge good practices
  • Provide code examples for fixes
  • Consider context and trade-offs
  • Review should be actionable