Agent skill · software engineering · aiskillstore
review-changes
Code review of current git changes, compare to related plan if exists, identify bad engineering, over-engineering, or suboptimal solutions. Use when user asks to review changes, check git diff, validate implementation quality, or assess code changes.
Why this skill is useful
Provides a structured code review process that identifies specific engineering issues and best practices not commonly codified in AI training data.
What it needs
About 8k tokens when loaded. Last updated 2026-08-07. 405 stars on the source repository.
What this skill does
Review Git Changes Instructions Perform thorough code review of current working copy changes, optionally compare to plan, and identify engineering issues. Phase 1: Discover Changes & Context Step 1: Get Current Changes Step 2: Identify Related Plan (if exists) Search for related plan file: Check .plans/ directory for relevant plan Look for plan mentioned in branch name Ask user if unsure which plan applies If no plan exists, review against general best practices If plan exists: Read the entire plan Understand intended design and architecture Note specific requirements and constraints Step 3: Categorize Changed Files Group files by type: New files: Created from scratch Modified files: Existing files changed Deleted files: Removed files Renamed/moved files: Organizational changes Create todo list with one item per changed file to review. Phase 2: Systematic File Review For EACH changed file in the todo list: Step 1: Read Current State Read the entire file in its current state Understand what it does Note its responsibilities Step 2: Analyze the Changes Read git diff to see exactly what changed: What was added? What was removed? What was modified? Step 3: Assess Against Plan (if applicable) If plan exists, check: Does implementation match plan? Are planned features implemented correctly? Is architecture followed? Are file names as specified? Scope adherence: Is this change in the plan? Is it necessary for the plan's goals? Is it scope creep? REMOVAL SPEC compliance: If plan said to remove code, was it removed? Is old code still present when it shouldn't be? Step 4: Identify Engineering Issues Check for Bad Engineering: Bugs: Logic errors, off-by-one, race conditions Poor error handling: Swallowed errors, generic catches Missing validation: No input validation, no null checks Hard-coded values: Magic numbers, hardcoded URLs/paths Tight coupling: Unnecessary dependencies between modules Violation of SRP: Class/function doing too many things Incorrect patterns: Misuse of …
How to use it
Reference it in AdaL, Claude Code, Cursor or any coding agent — nothing to install:
@skills aiskillstore/review-changes