explainx.ainewsletter3.4k
Productivity

code-review▌

alinaqi/claude-bootstrap · updated Apr 8, 2026

MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.

$npx skills add https://github.com/alinaqi/claude-bootstrap --skill code-review
0 commentsdiscussion
summary

Load with: base.md + [codex-review.md for OpenAI Codex] + [gemini-review.md for Google Gemini]

skill.md

Code Review Skill

Load with: base.md + [codex-review.md for OpenAI Codex] + [gemini-review.md for Google Gemini]

Purpose: Enforce automated code reviews as a mandatory guardrail before every commit and deployment. Choose between Claude, OpenAI Codex, Google Gemini, or multiple engines for comprehensive analysis.

Review Engine Choice

When running /code-review, users can choose their preferred review engine:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  CODE REVIEW - Choose Your Engine                               │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│  ○ Claude (default)                                             │
│    Built-in, no extra setup, full conversation context          │
│                                                                 │
│  ○ OpenAI Codex CLI                                             │
│    GPT-5.2-Codex specialized for code review, 88% detection     │
│    Requires: npm install -g @openai/codex                       │
│                                                                 │
│  ○ Google Gemini CLI                                            │
│    Gemini 2.5 Pro with 1M token context, free tier available    │
│    Requires: npm install -g @google/gemini-cli                  │
│                                                                 │
│  ○ Dual Engine (any two)                                        │
│    Run two engines, compare findings, catch more issues         │
│                                                                 │
│  ○ All Three (maximum coverage)                                 │
│    Run Claude + Codex + Gemini for critical/security code       │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Engine Comparison

Aspect Claude Codex Gemini Multi-Engine
Setup None npm + OpenAI API npm + Google Account All setups
Speed Fast Fast Fast 2-3x time
Context Conversation Fresh per review 1M tokens N/A
Detection Good 88% (best) 63.8% SWE-Bench Combined
Free Tier N/A Limited 1,000/day Varies
Best for Quick reviews High accuracy Large codebases Critical code

Set Default Engine

# ~/.claude/settings.toml or project CLAUDE.md
[code-review]
default_engine = "claude"  # Options: claude, codex, gemini, dual, all

Usage Examples

# Use default engine
/code-review

# Explicitly choose engine
/code-review --engine claude
/code-review --engine codex
/code-review --engine gemini

# Dual engine (pick any two)
/code-review --engine claude,codex
/code-review --engine claude,gemini
/code-review --engine codex,gemini

# All three engines
/code-review --engine all

# Quick shortcuts
/code-review              # Uses default
/code-review --codex      # Use Codex
/code-review --gemini     # Use Gemini
/code-review --all        # All three engines

Multi-Engine Output

When using multiple engines, findings are compared and deduplicated:

Dual Engine Example

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  CODE REVIEW RESULTS - DUAL ENGINE (Claude + Codex)             │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│  ✅ AGREED (Found by both):                                     │
│  🔴 SQL injection in auth.ts:45                                 │
│  🟡 Missing error handling in api.ts:112                        │
│                                                                 │
│  🔷 CLAUDE ONLY:                                                │
│  🟠 Potential race condition in worker.ts:89                    │
│  🟢 Consider extracting helper function                         │
│                                                                 │
│  🔶 CODEX ONLY:                                                 │
│  🟠 Memory leak - unclosed stream in upload.ts:34               │
│  🟡 N+1 query pattern in orders.ts:156                          │
│                                                                 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  SUMMARY                                                        │
│  Agreed: 2 | Claude only: 2 | Codex only: 2                     │
│  Critical: 1 | High: 2 | Medium: 2 | Low: 1                     │
│  Status: ❌ BLOCKED - Fix critical/high issues                  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Triple Engine Example (All Three)

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  CODE REVIEW RESULTS - TRIPLE ENGINE                            │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│  ✅ UNANIMOUS (All 3 found):                                    │
│  🔴 SQL injection in auth.ts:45                                 │
│                                                                 │
│  ✅ MAJORITY (2 of 3 found):                                    │
│  🟠 Memory leak - unclosed stream in upload.ts:34 (Codex+Gemini)│
│  🟡 Missing error handling in api.ts:112 (Claude+Codex)         │
│                                                                 │
│  🔷 CLAUDE ONLY:                                                │
│  🟠 Potential race condition in worker.ts:89                    │
│                                                                 │
│  🔶 CODEX ONLY:                                                 │
│  🟡 N+1 query pattern in orders.ts:156                          │
│                                                                 │
│  🟢 GEMINI ONLY:                                                │
│  🟡 Consider using batch API for better performance             │
│  🟢 Type could be more specific in types.ts:23                  │
│                                                                 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  SUMMARY                                                        │
│  Unanimous: 1 | Majority: 2 | Single: 5                         │
│  Critical: 1 | High: 2 | Medium: 3 | Low: 2                     │
│  Status: ❌ BLOCKED - Fix critical/high issues                  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

When to Use Each Mode

Mode Use When
Single (Claude) Quick in-flow reviews, exploration
Single (Codex) CI/CD automation, high accuracy needed
Single (Gemini) Large codebases (100+ files), free tier
Dual Important PRs, pre-merge reviews
Triple (All) Security-critical code, payment systems, auth

Core Philosophy

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  CODE REVIEW IS NON-NEGOTIABLE                                  │
│  ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│                                                                 │
│  Every commit must pass code review.                            │
│  Every PR must be reviewed before merge.                        │
│  Every deployment must include review sign-off.                 │
│                                                                 │
│  AI catches what humans miss. Humans catch what AI misses.      │
│  Together: fewer bugs, cleaner code, better security.           │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  INVOKE: /code-review                                           │
│  PLUGIN: code-review@claude-plugins-official                    │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

When to Run Code Review

Mandatory Review Points

Trigger Action Command
Before commit Review staged changes /code-review
Before PR Review all changes vs base /code-review
Before merge Final review of PR /code-review
Before deploy Review deployment diff /code-review

Automatic Integration

Run code review automatically before every commit:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  COMMIT WORKFLOW                                                │
│  ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────  │
│                                                                 │
│  1. Write code                                                  │
│  2. Run tests (TDD - must pass)                                 │
│  3. Run /code-review  ← MANDATORY                               │
│  4. Address critical/high issues                                │
│  5. Commit                                                      │
│  6. Push                                                        │
│                                                                 │
│  Skip step 3? ❌ NO COMMIT ALLOWED                              │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Using the Code Review Plugin

Basic Usage

# Review current changes
/code-review

# Review specific files
/code-review src/auth/*.ts

# Review a PR
/code-review --pr 123

# Review with specific focus
/code-review --focus security
/code-review --focus performance
/code-review --focus architecture

Review Categories

The code review plugin analyzes:

Category What It Checks
Security Vulnerabilities, injection risks, auth issues, secrets
Performance N+1 queries, memory leaks, inefficient algorithms
Architecture Design patterns, SOLID principles, coupling
Code Quality Readability, complexity, duplication
Best Practices Language idioms, framework conventions
Testing Coverage gaps, test quality, edge cases
Documentation Missing docs, outdated comments

Severity Levels

Level Action Required Can Commit?
🔴 Critical Must fix immediately ❌ NO
🟠 High Should fix before commit ❌ NO
🟡 Medium Fix soon, can commit ✅ YES
🟢 Low Nice to have ✅ YES
ℹ️ Info Suggestions only ✅ YES

Pre-Commit Hook Integration

Install Pre-Commit Hook

#!/bin/bash
# .git/hooks/pre-commit

echo "🔍 Running code review..."

# Run Claude code review on staged files
STAGED_FILES=$(git diff --cached --name-only --diff-filter=ACM | grep -E '\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs)$')

if [ -n "$STAGED_FILES" ]; then
    # Invoke code review (requires claude CLI)
    claude --print "/code-review $STAGED_FILES" > /tmp/code-review-result.txt 2>&1

    # Check for critical/high issues
    if grep -q "🔴\|Critical\|🟠\|High" /tmp/code-review-result.txt; then
        echo "❌ Code review found critical/high issues:"
        cat /tmp/code-review-result.txt
        echo ""
        echo "Fix these issues before committing."
        exit 1
    fi

    echo "✅ Code review passed"
fi

exit 0

Make Hook Executable

chmod +x .git/hooks/pre-commit

Codex CLI Setup (For Codex/Both Modes)

If you want to use Codex or Both modes, install the Codex CLI:

# Prerequisites: Node.js 22+
node --version  # Must be 22+

# Install Codex CLI
npm install -g @openai/codex

# Authenticate (choose one):
# Option 1: ChatGPT subscription (Plus, Pro, Team, Enterprise)
codex  # Follow prompts to sign in

# Option 2: API key
export OPENAI_API_KEY=sk-proj-...

Verify Installation

how to use code-review
How to use code-review on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
1
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
  • ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
  • ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with node --version)
  • ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add code-review
2
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
$npx skills add https://github.com/alinaqi/claude-bootstrap --skill code-review
The skills CLI fetches code-review from GitHub repository alinaqi/claude-bootstrap and configures it for Cursor.
3
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
◆ Which agents do you want to install to?
│
│ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ── always included ────
│   • Amp
│   • Antigravity
│   • Cline
│   • Codex
│ ●Cursor(selected)
│   • Cursor
│   • Windsurf
4
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
.cursor/skills/code-review
Reload or restart Cursor to activate code-review. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /code-review) or your agent's skill management interface.
⚠
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
Additional Resources
›View source code on GitHub›Skills CLI documentation›Learn more about Cursor›What are agent skills?

List & Monetize Your Skill

Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning

GET_STARTED →

Use Cases▌

User Story & Requirements Generation

Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs

Example

Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios

✓

Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage

Competitive Analysis

Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps

Example

Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities

✓

Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days

Roadmap Prioritization

Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs

Example

Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale

✓

Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster

Stakeholder Communication

Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations

Example

Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement

✓

Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead

Implementation Guide▌

Prerequisites

  • ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
  • ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
  • ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
  • ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels

Time Estimate

30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements

Installation Steps

  1. 1.Install product management skill
  2. 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
  3. 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
  4. 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
  5. 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
  6. 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
  7. 7.Share effective prompts with product team

Common Pitfalls

  • ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
  • ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
  • ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
  • ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
  • ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements

Best Practices▌

✓ Do

  • +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
  • +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
  • +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
  • +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
  • +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
  • +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition

✗ Don't

  • −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
  • −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
  • −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
  • −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
  • −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture

💡 Pro Tips

  • ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
  • ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
  • ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
  • ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs

When to Use This▌

✓ Use When

Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.

✗ Avoid When

Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.

Learning Path▌

  1. 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
  2. 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
  3. 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
  4. 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation

Discussion

Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)
  • No comments yet — start the thread.
general reviews

Ratings

4.5★★★★★57 reviews
  • ★★★★★Li Ghosh· Dec 28, 2024

    Useful defaults in code-review — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.

  • ★★★★★Chinedu Srinivasan· Dec 28, 2024

    code-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.

  • ★★★★★Oshnikdeep· Dec 24, 2024

    Registry listing for code-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • ★★★★★Tariq Kapoor· Dec 24, 2024

    I recommend code-review for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.

  • ★★★★★Yash Thakker· Dec 8, 2024

    We added code-review from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

  • ★★★★★Ira White· Nov 19, 2024

    code-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.

  • ★★★★★Harper Khanna· Nov 19, 2024

    Keeps context tight: code-review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.

  • ★★★★★Ganesh Mohane· Nov 15, 2024

    code-review reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

  • ★★★★★Ira Jackson· Nov 15, 2024

    code-review fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • ★★★★★Olivia Khanna· Nov 11, 2024

    Registry listing for code-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

showing 1-10 of 57

1 / 6