review▌

Build an HTML page that loads traces from a data source (JSON/CSV file), displays one trace at a time with Pass/Fail buttons, a free-text notes field, and Next/Previous navigation. Save labels to a local file (CSV/SQLite/JSON). Then customize to the domain using the guidelines below.

Context-driven code reviews prioritizing quality, security, testability, and maintainability. \n \n Organizes feedback into four priority levels: blockers (must fix), major issues (should fix), minor improvements, and suggestions, with clear templates and rationale for each \n Covers five core review areas: logic correctness, security risks, test coverage, performance issues, and error handling; explicitly excludes style nitpicking and formatting \n Recommends reviewing code in chunks under 400

Automated code review across security, performance, quality, and testing dimensions. \n \n Analyzes pull requests for four distinct review categories: security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, hardcoded secrets), performance issues (N+1 queries, memory leaks, missing caches), code quality (duplication, SRP violations, poor naming), and test coverage gaps \n Flags issues at three severity levels (critical, suggestions, nits) with explanations and suggested fixes for each finding \n Includes a

$22

Comprehensive code review for diffs with auto-detected domain-specific checks. \n \n Analyzes changed code for security vulnerabilities, anti-patterns, quality issues, and breaking changes across generic, frontend, and backend domains \n Auto-detects domain (frontend, backend, CLI, config) from file paths and applies relevant checklists \n Generates structured markdown reports with severity levels, file locations, code snippets, and actionable recommendations \n Performs impact analysis to ident

AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit, triggered on explicit request or autonomously when quality/security issues are detected. \n \n Identifies bugs, security vulnerabilities, and quality risks; groups findings by severity (Critical, Warning, Info) \n Supports reviewing staged, committed, or all changes; can compare against specific branches or commit hashes \n Offers two output modes: --plain for detailed feedback with fix suggestions, or --prompt-only for minimal agent-optimized output \n E

Review Google Meet attendance records and participant session durations. \n \n Requires the gws-meet skill to access Google Meet conference data \n Three-step workflow: list recent conferences, retrieve participant details, and view individual session timestamps and durations \n Returns tabular output for easy review of who attended and how long they stayed \n

Review a web app or page for visual design quality. This is not a UX audit (usability, workflow, friction) — this checks whether the design is professional, consistent, and polished.

Analyze, audit, and improve project structure.

Review pull requests against repository standards. Two-phase process: automated validation, then manual content review.