
Code Review Checklist
- 45 installs
- 49 repo stars
- Updated August 4, 2026
- laurigates/claude-plugins
Helps with ai & agent building tasks.
About
code-review-checklist is a Claude Code skill for ai & agent building. It helps solo builders move faster with AI-assisted development.
- code-review-checklist
- AI & Agent Building
- AI-coding skill
Code Review Checklist by the numbers
- 45 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- +1 installs in the week ending Aug 2, 2026 (Skillselion tracking)
- Ranked #7,749 of 16,546 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/laurigates/claude-plugins --skill code-review-checklistAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 45 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 49 |
| Last updated | August 4, 2026 |
| Repository | laurigates/claude-plugins ↗ |
What it does
Helps with ai & agent building tasks.
Files
Code Review Checklist
Structured approach to reviewing code changes.
When to Use This Skill
| Use this skill when... | Use something else instead when... |
|---|---|
| Walking a priority-ordered manual review checklist | Running a full delegated review pass → code-review |
| Hunting for hardcoded secrets, injection, or N+1 query patterns | Scanning specifically for anti-patterns → code-antipatterns |
| Verifying error handling and edge cases in a PR diff | Targeting swallowed errors directly → code-hidden-failures --track errors |
| Applying a deterministic checklist to a small change | Refactoring after the checklist surfaces issues → code-refactor |
Review Priority Order
1. Security (Critical) - Vulnerabilities, secrets, injection 2. Correctness (High) - Logic errors, breaking changes 3. Performance (Medium) - Inefficiencies, resource leaks 4. Quality (Medium) - Maintainability, readability 5. Style (Low) - Formatting, naming (should be automated)
Security Checklist
Secrets & Credentials
- [ ] No hardcoded API keys, passwords, tokens
- [ ] No credentials in logs or error messages
- [ ] Secrets loaded from environment/vault
Injection Vulnerabilities
- [ ] SQL queries use parameterized statements
- [ ] User input is sanitized before HTML output (XSS)
- [ ] Shell commands don't include user input (command injection)
- [ ] File paths are validated (path traversal)
Authentication & Authorization
- [ ] Auth checks on all protected endpoints
- [ ] Proper session handling
- [ ] Secure password handling (hashing, not plaintext)
Data Exposure
- [ ] Sensitive data not logged
- [ ] API responses don't leak internal details
- [ ] Error messages don't expose system info
Correctness Checklist
Logic
- [ ] Edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values)
- [ ] Error conditions handled appropriately
- [ ] Async operations properly awaited
- [ ] Race conditions considered
Breaking Changes
- [ ] API contracts maintained
- [ ] Database migrations are reversible
- [ ] Feature flags for risky changes
Testing
- [ ] New code has tests
- [ ] Tests cover error paths, not just happy path
- [ ] Existing tests still pass
Performance Checklist
Efficiency
- [ ] No N+1 queries
- [ ] Appropriate data structures used
- [ ] No unnecessary loops or iterations
- [ ] Caching considered for expensive operations
Resources
- [ ] Database connections closed/pooled
- [ ] File handles closed
- [ ] No memory leaks (event listeners removed, etc.)
Scale
- [ ] Works with realistic data volumes
- [ ] Pagination for large result sets
- [ ] Timeouts on external calls
Quality Checklist
Readability
- [ ] Clear, descriptive names
- [ ] Functions do one thing
- [ ] No overly complex conditionals
- [ ] Comments explain "why", not "what"
Maintainability
- [ ] DRY (no copy-paste duplication)
- [ ] Appropriate abstractions
- [ ] Dependencies are justified
- [ ] No dead code
Consistency
- [ ] Follows project patterns
- [ ] Matches existing code style
- [ ] Uses established utilities/helpers
Review Output Format
## Review: [PR Title]
**Risk Level**: LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH | CRITICAL
### Critical Issues
1. [Category] Description (file:line)
- Impact: What could go wrong
- Fix: Specific recommendation
### Suggestions
1. [Category] Description (file:line)
- Why: Reasoning
- Consider: Alternative approach
### Positive Notes
- [Recognition of good patterns]Quick Checks
For fast reviews, at minimum check: 1. Any secrets or credentials? 2. Any SQL/command injection? 3. Are error cases handled? 4. Do tests exist for new code?