# Qe Code Review Quality

Conduct context-driven code reviews focusing on quality, testability, and maintainability.

- Repository: https://github.com/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe (521 stars)
- Category: Engineering
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-11-01
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe --skill qe-code-review-quality -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe --skill qe-code-review-quality -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe --skill qe-code-review-quality -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe --skill qe-code-review-quality -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe`

## Description

Conduct context-driven code reviews focusing on quality, testability, and maintainability. Use when reviewing code, providing feedback, or establishing review practices.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# Code Review Quality

<default_to_action>
When reviewing code or establishing review practices:
1. PRIORITIZE feedback: 🔴 Blocker (must fix) → 🟡 Major → 🟢 Minor → 💡 Suggestion
2. FOCUS on: Bugs, security, testability, maintainability (not style preferences)
3. ASK questions over commands: "Have you considered...?" > "Change this to..."
4. PROVIDE context: Why this matters, not just what to change
5. LIMIT scope: Review < 400 lines at a time for effectiveness

**Quick Review Checklist:**
- Logic: Does it work correctly? Edge cases handled?
- Security: Input validation? Auth checks? Injection risks?
- Testability: Can this be tested? Is it tested?
- Maintainability: Clear naming? Single responsibility? DRY?
- Performance: O(n²) loops? N+1 queries? Memory leaks?

**Critical Success Factors:**
- Review the code, not the person
- Catching bugs > nitpicking style
- Fast feedback (< 24h) > thorough feedback
</default_to_action>

## Quick Reference Card

### When to Use
- PR code reviews
- Pair programming feedback
- Establishing team review standards
- Mentoring developers

### Feedback Priority Levels
| Level | Icon | Meaning | Action |
|-------|------|---------|--------|
| Blocker | 🔴 | Bug/security/crash | Must fix before merge |
| Major | 🟡 | Logic issue/test gap | Should fix before merge |
| Minor | 🟢 | Style/naming | Nice to fix |
| Suggestion | 💡 | Alternative approach | Consider for future |

### Review Scope Limits
| Lines Changed | Recommendation |
|---------------|----------------|
| < 200 | Single review session |
| 200-400 | Review in chunks |
| > 400 | Request PR split |

### What to Focus On
| ✅ Review | ❌ Skip |
|-----------|---------|
| Logic correctness | Formatting (use linter) |
| Security risks | Naming preferences |
| Test coverage | Architecture debates |
| Performance issues | Style opinions |
| Error handling | Trivial changes |

---

## Feedback Templates

### Blocker (Must Fix)
```markdown
🔴 **BLOCKER: SQL Injection Risk**

The rest: https://github.com/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/blob/HEAD/.kiro/skills/qe-code-review-quality/SKILL.md