reviewclaude-codecursorPractitioner-backed

Code review

Review code changes for security, performance, and correctness.

Upstream publishes this file as a Claude skill (SKILL.md). Cursor reads the same SKILL.md shape. This page does not claim either product ships the file.

Copy agent prompt Get SKILL.md Source ↗

What the research says

Practitioner-backed

Code review itself is well studied: low review coverage predicts more post-release defects. The checklist format this skill uses is not; a 2022 study found no strong link between checklists and review performance. LLM reviewers still miss most issues (best F1 about 19% on SWR-Bench), and structured prompts help mainly by cutting false positives.

Checked Oct 17, 2026. How we rate evidence

Let your agent do it

Copy a prompt for Claude Code, Codex, or Cursor.

Paste it into your coding agent in this repo. It does the setup and asks before anything leaves your machine.

Runs in GitHub Actions on your Claude Pro or Max plan through an OAuth token from claude setup-token. No API credits.

Set up the "OWASP-focused security PR review" GitHub workflow from AgentFlows (https://agentflows.sh/flows/claude-security-review) so it runs on my Claude Pro or Max subscription instead of API credits.

Install these agent skills first. Download each SKILL.md from its source (respect its license) into .claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md, or wherever this agent loads skills from:
- Code review: https://github.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins/blob/main/engineering/skills/code-review/SKILL.md (Apache-2.0), notes at https://agentflows.sh/skills/code-review

Save this file as .github/workflows/claude-security-review.yml:

```yaml
name: Security Review
on:
  pull_request:
    types: [opened, synchronize]
jobs:
  security:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    permissions:
      contents: read
      pull-requests: write
      id-token: write
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v6
        with:
          fetch-depth: 1
      - uses: anthropics/claude-code-action@v1
        with:
          claude_code_oauth_token: ${{ secrets.CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN }}
          use_sticky_comment: true
          prompt: |
            REPO: ${{ github.repository }}
            PR NUMBER: ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}
            Perform an OWASP Top 10 aligned security review. Rate each finding by severity.
          claude_args: |
            --allowedTools "mcp__github_inline_comment__create_inline_comment,Bash(gh pr comment:*),Bash(gh pr diff:*),Bash(gh pr view:*)"
```

It authenticates with CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN. Tell me to run `claude setup-token` in my own terminal to create it, then run `gh secret set CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` and let me paste it. Never write the token into a file.

It runs on: pull_request: opened, synchronize. Runs count against my subscription's usage limits, and GitHub Actions minutes still apply.

Show me the diff, then commit on a new branch and open a pull request.

The file

SKILL.md

Copy the upstream file, including its own frontmatter, into .claude/skills/code-review/SKILL.md.

.claude/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

---
name: code-review
description: Review code changes for security, performance, and correctness. Trigger with a PR URL or diff, "review this before I merge", "is this code safe?", or when checking a change for N+1 queries, injection risks, missing edge cases, or error handling gaps.
argument-hint: "<PR URL, diff, or file path>"
---

# /code-review

> If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md).

Review code changes with a structured lens on security, performance, correctness, and maintainability.

## Usage

```
/code-review <PR URL or file path>
```

Review the provided code changes: @$1

If no specific file or URL is provided, ask what to review.

## How It Works

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                      CODE REVIEW                                   │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  STANDALONE (always works)                                       │
│  ✓ Paste a diff, PR URL, or point to files                      │
│  ✓ Security audit (OWASP top 10, injection, auth)               │
│  ✓ Performance review (N+1, memory leaks, complexity)           │
│  ✓ Correctness (edge cases, error handling, race conditions)    │
│  ✓ Style (naming, structure, readability)                        │
│  ✓ Actionable suggestions with code examples                    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  SUPERCHARGED (when you connect your tools)                      │
│  + Source control: Pull PR diff automatically                    │
│  + Project tracker: Link findings to tickets                     │
│  + Knowledge base: Check against team coding standards           │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

## Review Dimensions

### Security
- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
- Authentication and authorization flaws
- Secrets or credentials in code
- Insecure deserialization
- Path traversal
- SSRF

### Performance
- N+1 queries
- Unnecessary memory allocations
- Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths)
- Missing database indexes
- Unbounded queries or loops
- Resource leaks

### Correctness
- Edge cases (empty input, null, overflow)
- Race conditions and concurrency issues
- Error handling and propagation
- Off-by-one errors
- Type safety

### Maintainability
- Naming clarity
- Single responsibility
- Duplication
- Test coverage
- Documentation for non-obvious logic

## Output

```markdown
## Code Review: [PR title or file]

### Summary
[1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall quality]

### Critical Issues
| # | File | Line | Issue | Severity |
|---|------|------|-------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | 🔴 Critical |

### Suggestions
| # | File | Line | Suggestion | Category |
|---|------|------|------------|----------|
| 1 | [file] | [line] | [description] | Performance |

### What Looks Good
- [Positive observations]

### Verdict
[Approve / Request Changes / Needs Discussion]
```

## If Connectors Available

If **~~source control** is connected:
- Pull the PR diff automatically from the URL
- Check CI status and test results

If **~~project tracker** is connected:
- Link findings to related tickets
- Verify the PR addresses the stated requirements

If **~~knowledge base** is connected:
- Check changes against team coding standards and style guides

## Tips

1. **Provide context** — "This is a hot path" or "This handles PII" helps me focus.
2. **Specify concerns** — "Focus on security" narrows the review.
3. **Include tests** — I'll check test coverage and quality too.