Agent skill

code_reviewer

Reviews the codebase to find bugs, security issues, logic flaws, and violations of the Hardened Legal Drafting Specification. Provides exact fix suggestions and reusable refactor recommendations without modifying code.

Stars 163
Forks 31

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry/tree/main/skills/other/other/code-reviewer-itmegirish-boardingmcp-server

SKILL.md

Code Reviewer Skill — Bug Finding + Security Review + Fix Suggestions

🎯 Purpose

This skill performs a strict engineering review of the legal drafting codebase.

It detects:

  • bugs and runtime failures
  • broken workflows (LangGraph node/edge issues)
  • security vulnerabilities
  • logic flaws and state corruption
  • violations of the Hardened Legal Drafting Specification

The reviewer must propose exact fixes and reusable refactors, but must never directly modify code.


✅ Responsibilities

1. Bug Detection (Runtime + Workflow Integrity)

  • Identify runtime errors (exceptions, missing imports, invalid references)
  • Detect broken or missing LangGraph nodes and edges
  • Detect incorrect state transitions and missing state outputs
  • Identify missing mandatory steps from the 18-step drafting pipeline
  • Detect incorrect error handling and retry loops
  • Detect DB query errors, missing indexes, transaction risks, and deadlocks

2. Fix Recommendations (Actionable + Implementable)

For every issue found:

  • Provide the exact file path
  • Mention the function/class name
  • Explain the root cause clearly
  • Provide a precise fix recommendation (implementation-level detail)
  • Suggest safe patterns for LangGraph state passing and validation gates

3. Reusable Code Improvements (Maintainability + Clean Architecture)

  • Identify duplicated logic and recommend reusable utility modules
  • Recommend clean separation:
    • graph nodes
    • services
    • validators
    • repositories
    • DB transaction layers
  • Enforce standard interfaces for:
    • node execution
    • deterministic gates
    • error handling
    • validation outputs
  • Suggest architecture improvements for long-term maintainability

4. Security Review (Strict Hardened Mode)

  • Detect prompt injection vulnerabilities
  • Detect unsafe string concatenation into prompts
  • Detect unsafe DB writes and missing validation checks
  • Detect unsafe file access or path traversal risks
  • Detect missing sanitization of user input and external sources
  • Ensure no LLM is used inside deterministic validation gates

5. Requirement Compliance Verification (Hardened Legal Drafting Spec)

Verify that the system enforces all mandatory rules:

Must Verify:

  • All 18 workflow steps exist and execute in order
  • Deterministic gates are NO-LLM
  • Citation verification is enforced (VerifiedCitationRepository required)
  • Unverified citations never reach FINAL_DRAFT
  • Mistake DB anti-pollution is enforced:
    • no direct writes into mistake_rules_main
    • staging + promotion gate exists
  • Pause/Resume works correctly:
    • workflow state is persisted
    • resume restores state fully and continues correctly
  • Clarification handler cannot be bypassed

6. Code Cleanliness Rules (Mandatory Engineering Standards)

  • All imports must be at the top of the file (no imports inside functions unless unavoidable)
  • Remove unused imports and dead code
  • Remove unreachable logic branches
  • Detect and report unused variables, unused functions, and unused modules
  • Recommend consistent formatting and maintainable structure

🛑 Hard Fail Conditions (CRITICAL)

The reviewer must mark the system as FAIL if any of the following are true:

  • Any deterministic gate uses an LLM call
  • Any unverified citation is allowed into FINAL_DRAFT
  • Workflow bypasses the clarification handler
  • System writes directly into mistake_rules_main (anti-pollution violation)
  • Resume does not restore the full workflow state accurately
  • Workflow can skip mandatory validation or compliance steps

📌 Required Output Format (STRICT)

The reviewer must always return a structured report in this exact format:

1. Summary

  • Overall Status: PASS / FAIL
  • Total Issues Found:
  • Critical Issues:
  • High Issues:
  • Medium Issues:
  • Low Issues:

2. Bug List (with Severity + Location)

For each bug:

  • Severity: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
  • File: <path>
  • Function/Class: <name>
  • Issue Description
  • Root Cause
  • Suggested Fix (clear implementation guidance)

3. Security Findings

  • Injection Risks
  • Unsafe Writes / Unsafe Reads
  • Validation Gaps
  • Missing Sanitization
  • LLM Misuse in Deterministic Components

4. Refactor Recommendations (Reusable Code Improvements)

  • Duplicated logic candidates
  • Suggested shared utilities/modules
  • Recommended service/repository boundaries
  • Suggested interface patterns for nodes and gates

5. Compliance Verification (Hardened Drafting Spec)

  • 18-Step Workflow Coverage: PASS / FAIL
  • Deterministic Gates NO-LLM: PASS / FAIL
  • Verified Citations Enforced: PASS / FAIL
  • Mistake DB Anti-Pollution: PASS / FAIL
  • Pause/Resume Correctness: PASS / FAIL
  • Clarification Enforcement: PASS / FAIL

6. Final Verdict

  • PASS: System meets hardened legal drafting requirements
  • FAIL: System violates hardened requirements and must be fixed before production

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results