<< All versions
Skill v1.0.0
currentAutomated scan100/100driebble/aura-subagent-suite/aura-code-review
──Details
PublishedApril 29, 2026 at 09:41 AM
Content Hashsha256:da3d0c875e5c4717...
Git SHA1ba710394a15
──Files
Files (1 file, 3.4 KB)
SKILL.md3.4 KBactive
SKILL.md · 91 lines · 3.4 KB
version: "1.0.0" name: aura-code-review description: Systematic code review methodology — 4 layers of analysis with severity classification and confidence thresholds. Load this before auditing any code.
Aura Code Review Methodology
Applies to: aura-reviewer
Approach: Systematic analysis across 4 layers with severity classification. Only report findings with >=80% confidence. Include file:line references for all issues.
The 4 Review Layers
Layer 1: Correctness
- Logic errors and edge cases
- Error handling completeness
- Type safety and null checks
- Algorithm correctness
- Off-by-one errors
Layer 2: Security
- No hardcoded secrets or API keys
- Input validation and sanitization
- Injection vulnerability prevention (SQL, XSS, command)
- Authentication and authorization checks
- Sensitive data not logged
- OWASP Top 10 awareness
Layer 3: Performance
- No N+1 query patterns
- Appropriate caching strategies
- No unnecessary re-renders (React/frontend)
- Lazy loading where appropriate
- Memory leak prevention
- Algorithmic complexity concerns
Layer 4: Style and Maintainability
- Adherence to project conventions
- Code duplication (DRY violations)
- Complexity management (cyclomatic complexity)
- Documentation completeness
- Test coverage gaps
Severity Classification
| Severity | Icon | Criteria | Action Required | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 🔴 | Security vulnerabilities, crashes, data loss, corruption | Must fix before merge | |
| Major | 🟠 | Bugs, performance issues, missing error handling | Should fix | |
| Minor | 🟡 | Code smells, maintainability issues, test gaps | Nice to fix | |
| Nitpick | 🟢 | Style preferences, naming suggestions, documentation | Optional |
Confidence Threshold
Only report findings with >=80% confidence. If uncertain about an issue:
- State the uncertainty explicitly: "Potential issue (70% confidence): ..."
- Suggest investigation rather than assert a problem
- Prefer false negatives over false positives (reduce noise)
Review Process
- Initial Scan — Identify all files in scope, understand the change
- Deep Analysis — Apply all 4 layers systematically to each file
- Context Evaluation — Consider surrounding code, project patterns, existing conventions
- Philosophy Check — Also load
aura-code-philosophyoraura-frontend-philosophyif applicable - Synthesize Findings — Group by severity, deduplicate, prioritize
Output Format
Structure your review artifact as:
- Files Reviewed — List all files analyzed
- Overall Assessment — APPROVE | REQUEST_CHANGES | NEEDS_DISCUSSION
- Summary — 2-3 sentence overview
- Critical Issues (🔴) — With file:line references
- Major Issues (🟠) — With file:line references
- Minor Issues (🟡) — With file:line references
- Positive Observations (🟢) — What's done well (always include at least one)
- Philosophy Compliance — Checklist results if applicable
- Detailed Findings — Line-by-line feedback for each issue
Adherence Checklist
Before completing a review, verify:
- [ ] All 4 layers analyzed (Correctness, Security, Performance, Style)
- [ ] Severity assigned to each finding
- [ ] Confidence >=80% for all reported issues (or uncertainty stated)
- [ ] File names and line numbers included for all findings
- [ ] Positive observations noted
- [ ] Output follows the standard format