50ae997ab4
* chore(deps): add yaml package for skill parsing Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * feat(agent): add skills system Implement a skills system inspired by moltbot's approach: - Skills are markdown files (SKILL.md) with YAML frontmatter - Multi-source loading with precedence: bundled < user < workspace - Eligibility filtering based on platform, binaries, and env vars - Skills are automatically included in agent system prompt - New AgentOptions: enableSkills, skillsBaseDir, extraSkillDirs Includes two bundled skills: - commit: Git commit helper with conventional commit guidelines - code-review: Code review checklist and best practices Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * refactor(skills): use profile-based skills instead of workspace Change skill loading from workspace-based (.skills/) to profile-based: - Skills now load from ~/.super-multica/agent-profiles/<profileId>/skills/ - Remove workspace and user skill sources - Simplify to only bundled and profile sources - Profile skills have higher precedence than bundled This is more appropriate for non-coding agents where skills are associated with agent identity rather than working directory. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
81 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
81 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: Code Review
|
|
description: Review code for bugs, security issues, and best practices
|
|
version: 1.0.0
|
|
metadata:
|
|
emoji: "🔍"
|
|
tags:
|
|
- code-quality
|
|
- security
|
|
- review
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Instructions
|
|
|
|
When the user asks you to review code, follow these guidelines:
|
|
|
|
### Review Checklist
|
|
|
|
1. **Correctness**
|
|
- Does the code do what it's supposed to do?
|
|
- Are there any logic errors?
|
|
- Are edge cases handled?
|
|
|
|
2. **Security**
|
|
- Input validation and sanitization
|
|
- SQL injection vulnerabilities
|
|
- XSS vulnerabilities
|
|
- Command injection
|
|
- Path traversal
|
|
- Sensitive data exposure
|
|
- Authentication/authorization issues
|
|
|
|
3. **Code Quality**
|
|
- Is the code readable and maintainable?
|
|
- Are variable/function names descriptive?
|
|
- Is there unnecessary complexity?
|
|
- Are there code duplications?
|
|
|
|
4. **Performance**
|
|
- Are there obvious performance issues?
|
|
- N+1 queries
|
|
- Unnecessary loops or computations
|
|
- Memory leaks
|
|
|
|
5. **Error Handling**
|
|
- Are errors properly caught and handled?
|
|
- Are error messages helpful?
|
|
- Is there proper logging?
|
|
|
|
6. **Testing**
|
|
- Are there tests for the new code?
|
|
- Do the tests cover edge cases?
|
|
|
|
### Review Format
|
|
|
|
Structure your review as follows:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
## Summary
|
|
[Brief overview of what the code does and overall assessment]
|
|
|
|
## Critical Issues
|
|
[Must-fix issues: bugs, security vulnerabilities]
|
|
|
|
## Suggestions
|
|
[Improvements and best practices recommendations]
|
|
|
|
## Questions
|
|
[Clarifications needed about intent or design decisions]
|
|
|
|
## Positive Aspects
|
|
[Good practices observed in the code]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Guidelines
|
|
|
|
- Be constructive, not critical
|
|
- Explain the "why" behind suggestions
|
|
- Provide concrete examples for improvements
|
|
- Prioritize issues by severity
|
|
- Acknowledge good practices
|