by akkie76
Evidence-based code review skills for Codex and Claude Code
# Add to your Claude Code skills
git clone https://github.com/akkie76/code-review-skillsGuides for using ai agents skills like code-review-skills.
Last scanned: 9/29/2026
{
"issues": [],
"status": "PASSED",
"scannedAt": "2026-09-29T10:25:55.958Z",
"npmAuditRan": true,
"pipAuditRan": true,
"promptInjectionRan": true
}See how code-review-skills compares with popular alternatives.
code-review-skills is an open-source ai agents skill for AI coding assistants such as Claude Code, Codex CLI, and ChatGPT, built by akkie76. Evidence-based code review skills for Codex and Claude Code. It has 85 GitHub stars.
Yes. code-review-skills passed SkillsLLM's automated security scan — a dependency vulnerability audit plus prompt-injection heuristics — with no high-severity issues. You can read the full report in the Security Report section on this page.
Clone the repository with "git clone https://github.com/akkie76/code-review-skills" and add it to your Claude Code skills directory (see the Installation section above).
code-review-skills is primarily written in Python. It is open-source under akkie76 on GitHub, so you can review or fork the full source.
Yes. SkillsLLM lists many other AI Agents skills you can browse and compare side by side. Open the AI Agents category from the badge at the top of this page, or use the Related Skills and comparison links further down to weigh code-review-skills against similar tools.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
From $49 · 30 days · terms & refunds
⚠️ Third-Party Software Notice
This skill is third-party open-source software developed and hosted independently on GitHub. SkillsLLM is an informational directory and does not control or maintain the underlying repository.
Any security checks, ratings, or warnings displayed by SkillsLLM are automated and limited in scope. They do not constitute a security certification or guarantee that the software is safe, error-free, or free from malicious code, vulnerabilities, compromised dependencies, or prompt-injection risks.
Review the source code, permissions, dependencies, and configuration before installing or running any third-party skill. Use is at your own risk. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, SkillsLLM is not liable for losses arising from third-party software.
Automated security scan — not a certification.
An evidence-driven code-review workflow for Codex and Claude Code.
This Skill is based on ideas from コードレビューの教科書 and independently adapts them for AI coding agents. It does not reproduce or replace the book.
Version: v1.0.0 · License: MIT
The documented review-output format is stable from 1.0.0. Review decisions are still model- and context-dependent: this Skill does not guarantee that every defect will be found or that repeated reviews will produce identical findings.
Clone the release tag so the installed package has a known version:
git clone --depth 1 --branch v1.0.0 https://github.com/akkie76/code-review-skills.git
cd code-review-skills
mkdir -p ~/.codex/skills
cp -R dist/codex/evidence-code-review ~/.codex/skills/
Then start a new Codex task and ask, for example:
Use the
evidence-code-reviewskill to review the changes on this branch againstmain. Focus on correctness, regressions, and tests. Do not modify files.
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
cp -R dist/claude-code/evidence-code-review ~/.claude/skills/
Start a new Claude Code session and invoke the Skill, for example:
/evidence-code-review Review the changes on this branch against main. Focus on correctness, regressions, and tests. Do not modify files.
For project-only installation, Windows instructions, verification, updates, removal, and troubleshooting, see the installation guide.
Actionable comments start with an action level and viewpoint:
MUST: a demonstrated issue that must be resolved before merge.SHOULD: a concrete risk that normally should be addressed, but may be
deferred by an explicit decision.BETTER: an optional alternative with a specific benefit.NITS: a minor, non-blocking correction.The viewpoint explains the concern, such as Functionality, Test,
Simplicity, or Document. A finding should give its location and concrete
evidence, explain when it occurs and its impact, and suggest a proportionate
direction.
MUST(Functionality): Advance the page before requesting the next result set
Location: `src/client.ts:42`
When the API returns a full page, this loop requests the same page again because
`page` never changes. That duplicates results and increases request volume;
advance the page before the next request.
This is an illustrative example. See the review comment convention for the full action-level, viewpoint, evidence, and communication rules.
Languages, frameworks, architecture, and test commands differ by repository.
Put the information needed for an accurate review in that repository's
AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, or a project document referenced by those files. Useful
context includes version constraints, lifecycle or concurrency rules,
architecture conventions, and verification commands. Do not store project
information in the installed package; updates may replace it.
The original material in this repository is licensed under the MIT License.