Specify a webhook-driven task for OpenClaw
Describe event inputs, validation, deduplication, and intended actions before integration work.
Systematic code review checklist for quality and security
--- name: code-review-60d4757631c5 description: Systematic code review checklist for quality and security license: MIT compatibility: opencode metadata: audience: developers workflow: review --- ## What I Do - Provide systematic review checklist - Identify security, performance, and maintainability issues - Ensure consistent review quality - Focus on what matters most ## When to Use Me Use this skill when: - Reviewing pull requests - Self-reviewing before submitting - Auditing existing code - Onboarding to a new codebase ## Review Checklist ### 1. Correctness - [ ] Does the code do what it's supposed to do? - [ ] Are edge cases handled? - [ ] Are error conditions handled gracefully? - [ ] Are there any obvious bugs? ### 2. Security - [ ] Input validation present? - [ ] No SQL injection vulnerabilities? - [ ] No XSS vulnerabilities? - [ ] Sensitive data not logged or exposed? - [ ] Authentication/authorization correct? - [ ] No hardcoded secrets? ### 3. Performance - [ ] No N+1 queries? - [ ] Appropriate caching? - [ ] No unnecessary loops or iterations? - [ ] Large data sets paginated? - [ ] Async operations where appropriate? ### 4. Maintainability - [ ] Code is readable and self-documenting? - [ ] Functions are small and focused? - [ ] No code duplication? - [ ] Naming is clear and consistent? - [ ] Comments explain WHY, not WHAT? ### 5. Testing - [ ] Tests exist for new functionality? - [ ] Edge cases tested? - [ ] Tests are readable and maintainable? - [ ] No flaky tests? ### 6. Architecture - [ ] Follows existing patterns? - [ ] Appropriate separation of concerns? - [ ] Dependencies are reasonable? - [ ] No circular dependencies? ## Review Feedback Format **For issues:** ``` [SEVERITY] File:Line - Description Problem: What's wrong Impact: Why it matters Suggestion: How to fix ``` **Severity levels:** - `[BLOCKER]` - Must fix before merge - `[MAJOR]` - Should fix, significant issue - `[MINOR]` - Nice to fix, small improvement - `[NIT]` - Optional, style preference ## Good Review Practices 1. **Be constructive** - Suggest solutions, not just problems 2. **Be specific** - Point to exact lines 3. **Be kind** - Review the code, not the person 4. **Be thorough** - Don't just skim 5. **Be timely** - Review within 24 hours ## Self-Review Checklist Before submitting a PR, verify: - [ ] I've reviewed my own diff - [ ] Tests pass locally - [ ] No debug code left in - [ ] No commented-out code - [ ] Commit messages are clear - [ ] PR description explains the change--- name: code-review-60d4757631c5 description: Systematic code review checklist for quality and security license: MIT compatibility: opencode metadata: audience: developers workflow: review --- ## What I Do - Provide systematic review checklist - Identify security, performance, and maintainability issues - Ensure consistent review quality - Focus on what matters most ## When to Use Me Use this skill when: - Reviewing pull requests - Self-reviewing before submitting - Auditing existing code - Onboarding to a new codebase ## Review Checklist ### 1. Correctness - [ ] Does the code do what it's supposed to do? - [ ] Are edge cases handled? - [ ] Are error conditions handled gracefully? - [ ] Are there any obvious bugs? ### 2. Security - [ ] Input validation present? - [ ] No SQL injection vulnerabilities? - [ ] No XSS vulnerabilities? - [ ] Sensitive data not logged or exposed? - [ ] Authentication/authorization correct? - [ ] No hardcoded secrets? ### 3. Performance - [ ] No N+1 queries? - [ ] Appropriate caching? - [ ] No unnecessary loops or iterations? - [ ] Large data sets paginated? - [ ] Async operations where appropriate? ### 4. Maintainability - [ ] Code is readable and self-documenting? - [ ] Functions are small and focused? - [ ] No code duplication? - [ ] Naming is clear and consistent? - [ ] Comments explain WHY, not WHAT? ### 5. Testing - [ ] Tests exist for new functionality? - [ ] Edge cases tested? - [ ] Tests are readable and maintainable? - [ ] No flaky tests? ### 6. Architecture - [ ] Follows existing patterns? - [ ] Appropriate separation of concerns? - [ ] Dependencies are reasonable? - [ ] No circular dependencies? ## Review Feedback Format **For issues:** ``` [SEVERITY] File:Line - Description Problem: What's wrong Impact: Why it matters Suggestion: How to fix ``` **Severity levels:** - `[BLOCKER]` - Must fix before merge - `[MAJOR]` - Should fix, significant issue - `[MINOR]` - Nice to fix, small improvement - `[NIT]` - Optional, style preference ## Good Review Practices 1. **Be constructive** - Suggest solutions, not just problems 2. **Be specific** - Point to exact lines 3. **Be kind** - Review the code, not the person 4. **Be thorough** - Don't just skim 5. **Be timely** - Review within 24 hours ## Self-Review Checklist Before submitting a PR, verify: - [ ] I've reviewed my own diff - [ ] Tests pass locally - [ ] No debug code left in - [ ] No commented-out code - [ ] Commit messages are clear - [ ] PR description explains the change
Imported from the listed AgentSkill.sh category. Complete supplied package files and notices are retained. Required external tools and credentials are not installed. No bundled code was executed during import. Individual agent task behavior has not been tested.