review▌

Expert code review of current git changes with a senior engineer lens. \n \n Detects SOLID violations (SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP), architecture smells, and proposes incremental refactors with clear rationale \n Scans for security risks including injection, XSS, AuthZ gaps, race conditions, and unsafe deserialization with exploitability assessment \n Identifies removal candidates and unused code with safe deletion vs. deferred plans and concrete follow-up checkpoints \n Flags code quality issues: e

Structured code review for security, performance, correctness, and maintainability across PR diffs and file changes. \n \n Audits security risks including SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, authentication flaws, and credential exposure \n Identifies performance issues like N+1 queries, memory leaks, algorithmic complexity, and resource leaks \n Checks correctness for edge cases, race conditions, error handling, and type safety gaps \n Works standalone with diffs and file paths; integrates with source con

This skill provides systematic review and editing of scientific manuscripts (research articles, reviews, perspectives) to improve clarity, structure, scientific rigor, and reader comprehension. It applies a multi-pass approach covering structure, scientific logic, language, and formatting to transform drafts into publication-ready documents.

Comprehensive, library-agnostic checklist for reviewing Flutter/Dart applications. These principles apply regardless of which state management solution, routing library, or DI framework is used.

Structured code review framework covering quality, security, performance, and testing standards. \n \n Provides eight-step review methodology: context understanding, high-level architecture assessment, detailed code inspection, security audit, performance analysis, testing validation, documentation check, and constructive feedback delivery \n Covers SOLID principles, naming conventions, error handling, input validation, authentication/authorization, SQL injection and XSS prevention, and resource

Conduct a systematic literature review on "$ARGUMENTS" using the paper and paper-search CLI tools.

These are idiomatic FastAPI patterns that may appear problematic but are correct:

Transform code reviews from gatekeeping to knowledge sharing through constructive feedback, systematic analysis, and collaborative improvement.

Systematic Go code review against community style standards and best practices. \n \n Covers 15+ review categories: formatting, documentation, error handling, naming, concurrency, interfaces, data structures, security, declarations, functions, style, logging, imports, generics, and testing \n Includes automated pre-review checks via gofmt , go vet , and golangci-lint to catch mechanical issues before manual review \n Organizes findings by severity (must-fix, should-fix, nit) using a consistent t

Systematic literature reviews across multiple academic databases with verified citations and professional formatting. \n \n Searches PubMed, bioRxiv, arXiv, Semantic Scholar, and specialized databases (ChEMBL, KEGG, UniProt) via integrated skills; aggregates and deduplicates results across sources \n Structures reviews through seven phases: planning, multi-database search, screening, data extraction, thematic synthesis, citation verification, and PDF generation \n Verifies all DOIs and citations