Files
personamanagmentlayer__pcl/stdlib/tools/code-review-expert/SKILL.md
ANGX 4e07a6a874 feat(stdlib)!: Agent Skills v1.0 conformance, resolver fix, and 17 new skills (#43)
* chore(stdlib): add conformance tooling for the skills library

The library had no gate that could express what a valid skill is, so
malformed frontmatter, over-budget files and credential literals went
unnoticed. These scripts define and enforce that contract.

- validate-skills.py: extend with Agent Skills v1.0 conformance -
  naming rules and directory agreement, an explicit activation trigger
  in the description, canonical layout, the 500-line SKILL.md budget,
  relative-link integrity, and two security rules (no unrestricted
  Bash(*) grant, no credential literals). Structural checks now read a
  skill as a whole so material moved into references/ still counts.
- split-skill-references.py: move the heaviest sections of an oversized
  SKILL.md into references/. Verifies line by line that every source
  line lands in exactly one output and refuses to write otherwise.
- generate-skill-inventory.py: derive SKILLS_INVENTORY.md and
  DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE.md from the tree so they cannot drift.
- generate-skill-catalog.py: index the canonical layout only, count
  references/ toward a skill's size, and stop truncating descriptions
  at 200 characters - the catalog is the discovery surface and must
  carry the activation trigger.
- .gitignore: Python bytecode from these scripts, and local .pcl state.

Reviewed-by: Security Analyst, Compiler Engineer, DevX Engineer

* fix(stdlib): bring all 174 skills to Agent Skills v1.0 conformance

No skill in the library was conformant. 41 of 175 failed the existing
validator outright, and none satisfied the spec. This pass fixes the
tree and records the result. See stdlib/CHANGELOG.md for the per-skill
versioning and migration notes.

BREAKING CHANGE: one skill removed, five moved, seven with a capability
withdrawn. Library version 2.0.0 -> 3.0.0.

Structure
- Convert 71 skills stored as flat files to <category>/<name>/SKILL.md,
  the layout the spec requires and the only one able to carry companion
  resources.
- Rename 5 directories that disagreed with their declared name:, so
  resolution by path and by name stop giving different answers. The
  repository docs already referenced the corrected paths.
- Merge the duplicate legal-technology skills into legaltech-expert and
  delete legal-tech-expert, carrying over everything the survivor
  lacked.

Metadata
- Repair 20 unparseable frontmatters: an H1 preceded the --- block and
  the key was skill_id: instead of name:, so any parser reading
  frontmatter at offset 0 saw no metadata at all. The objectives,
  prerequisites and outcome they carried become real body sections.
- Add the missing version: to 21 skills, fold keywords into tags, move
  expertise_level under metadata, and align 10 category: values with
  their directory.

Discoverability
- Give all 174 descriptions an explicit "Use when ..." trigger, built
  from each skill's own tags and section headings. 152 previously said
  only what the skill was about, leaving an agent nothing to match on.

Progressive disclosure
- Split 127 oversized skills, moving bulk material into references/ read
  on demand and leaving an index behind. A SKILL.md now averages 277
  lines instead of 644 and none exceeds 500. Verified lossless line by
  line against the previous revision.

Security
- Withdraw the unrestricted Bash(*) grant from 7 skills; none of the six
  non-financial ones contained a single shell command. finance-expert
  documents code that charges cards and reads bank accounts, so it now
  grants no shell at all.
- Remove credential literals: Stripe keys, two JWT signing keys, an
  Express session secret, a Redis password and WiFi credentials, all
  inlined in examples. They load from the environment now.
- finance-expert: idempotency keys were documented but absent, so a
  retry double-charged; webhook signature failures were not caught, so a
  forged event raised uncaught instead of being rejected;
  int(amount * 100) truncated fractions of a cent. All fixed, plus a
  money-movement guardrails section.
- trading-expert: place_order routed without any pre-trade risk check
  although a RiskManager sat unused in the next section. Risk validation
  now runs before routing and raises rather than returning a boolean a
  caller can ignore; live routing is opt-in.
- Correct an Ansible Vault example that showed plaintext under an
  "encrypted" label.

Also fixes 8 broken documentation links and a prematurely closed code
fence in skill-creator-expert that leaked template content into prose.

Per the repository file-organization policy, four stale progress reports
(SKILLS_MANIFEST, COMPLETE_SKILLS_LIBRARY, COMPLETE_LIBRARY_MANIFEST,
PHASE_3_DATA_ANALYTICS) move out of stdlib/ into the gitignored
.roadmap/status/stdlib/; they claimed 31 of 100 skills complete. They
appear here as deletions because .roadmap/ is not tracked.

Reviewed-by: Security Analyst, Language Designer, DevX Engineer,
             Documentation Specialist

* fix(skills): resolve standard library skills from their real layout

No stdlib skill was resolvable. SkillResolver looked for
`<stdlibDir>/<name>.md` with stdlibDir defaulting to `stdlib/skills`, a
directory that does not exist, and the path ignored the category level
the library actually uses. The two LSP providers had the same wrong
directory and scanned only one level deep, so neither completion nor
go-to-definition could see a skill either.

- skill-discovery.ts: enumerate skill entry points across the shapes in
  use - a flat `<name>.md`, `<name>/SKILL.md`, and
  `<category>/<name>/SKILL.md` - while skipping references/, scripts/
  and assets/, which hold supporting material rather than entry points.
- skill-resolver.ts: point stdlibDir at `stdlib`, and look the name up
  as a directory under any category as well as the two legacy shapes, so
  existing custom stdlib directories keep working. The name is used as a
  single path segment and rejected if it contains a separator or
  traversal, so a reference cannot escape the stdlib root.
- Rewire both LSP providers onto the shared discovery helper.

Tests: 13 new cases covering the layouts, ordering, the references/
exclusion, path-traversal rejection, and an integration test that
resolves real shipped skills by bare name.

Reviewed-by: Compiler Engineer, Runtime Architect, Security Analyst

* feat(stdlib): add 17 skills covering the library's largest gaps

Selection was driven by cross-referencing coverage against observed usage
rather than by intuition: Stack Overflow and GitHub Octoverse data for
which technologies matter, and install rankings on public agent-skill
registries for the shape of skills people actually use.

That comparison found a mismatch of form, not only of coverage. The
most-installed skills in the ecosystem are procedures - tdd, refactoring,
frontend design, browser automation - while all 174 existing skills were
domain knowledge shaped as <domain>-expert. The new workflows/ category
closes that gap and introduces the <activity>-workflow convention.

New category workflows/ (4)
- tdd-workflow, refactoring-workflow, debugging-workflow,
  code-review-workflow. code-review-workflow complements rather than
  replaces code-review-expert: procedure versus judgement. Merge them if
  the split proves confusing in use.

Applied AI (3) - the largest coverage gap
- llm-engineering-expert, rag-expert, agent-engineering-expert.
  The library referenced LLMs in tags but covered none of it: pgvector
  appeared zero times across 174 skills, LangChain once, MCP twice
  despite the repository shipping an MCP integration guide.

Capabilities (2)
- document-processing-expert (PDF, DOCX, XLSX, PPTX in one skill),
  browser-automation-expert (a client against third-party sites,
  distinct from playwright-expert which tests your own application).

Data (3)
- mysql-expert, the second most used database and previously absent
  while rarer stores had skills; analytical-databases-expert;
  stream-processing-expert.

Security (3)
- secrets-management-expert, supply-chain-security-expert (OWASP A03
  2025), identity-access-expert (OWASP A01).

Interface and meta (2)
- accessibility-expert: design/ held only design-expert, which despite
  its name covers software architecture, so WCAG had no home.
- skill-router: find and compose skills across 191, with a
  disambiguation table for overlapping pairs.

Grouping by decision context rather than by technology keeps the growth
to 17 skills for roughly 50 topics. Five vector stores live inside
rag-expert; four document formats inside document-processing-expert.
Per-tool depth sits in references/, which the progressive-disclosure work
in 3.0.0 made cheap.

Four further gaps are better served by extending existing skills -
PyTorch and TensorFlow in ml-expert, OpenTelemetry in monitoring-expert,
Pulumi and Crossplane in terraform-expert - and are not in this change.

Library 3.0.0 -> 3.1.0, additive only. Adds the workflows label to the
inventory generator; catalogue, inventory, structure and CHANGELOG
regenerated.

Reviewed-by: Product Strategist, Security Analyst, DevX Engineer,
             Documentation Specialist

* fix(test): create test directories with mkdtempSync

CodeQL flagged js/insecure-temporary-file (CWE-377) on both suites.
`join(tmpdir(), <predictable name>)` followed by mkdirSync creates a
world-readable directory at a guessable path, so another local user can
pre-create it or plant a symlink between the name being computed and the
directory being created.

mkdtempSync creates the directory atomically with a random suffix and
0700 permissions, which closes both the disclosure and the race.

One occurrence is new in this branch (skill-discovery); the other
pre-dates it in skill-resolver and is fixed in the same pass rather than
left as a known finding in a file this branch already touches.
2026-09-05 04:35:30 +02:00

8.8 KiB

name, version, description, category, tags, allowed-tools, license, compatibility, metadata
name version description category tags allowed-tools license compatibility metadata
code-review-expert 1.1.0 Expert-level code review focusing on quality, security, performance, and maintainability. Use this skill for conducting thorough code reviews, identifying issues, and providing constructive feedback. tools
code-review
quality
best-practices
collaboration
security
Read
Write
Apache-2.0 agentskills, claude-code
author legacy-category
PCL Team development-tools

Code Review Expert

You are an expert code reviewer with deep knowledge of software quality, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and code maintainability across multiple programming languages.

Core Expertise

Code Quality

  • Readability: Clear naming, proper formatting, logical structure
  • Maintainability: DRY principle, SOLID principles, low coupling
  • Testability: Unit test coverage, test quality, edge cases
  • Documentation: Comments, docstrings, README files
  • Error Handling: Proper exception handling, validation, edge cases

Security Review

  • OWASP Top 10: Common web vulnerabilities
  • Input Validation: SQL injection, XSS, command injection
  • Authentication: Secure password handling, session management
  • Authorization: Access control, privilege escalation
  • Sensitive Data: Secrets management, data encryption
  • Dependencies: Known vulnerabilities, supply chain security

Performance Review

  • Algorithmic Complexity: Big-O analysis, optimization opportunities
  • Database Queries: N+1 queries, index usage, query optimization
  • Caching: Appropriate caching strategies
  • Resource Management: Memory leaks, file handles, connections
  • Concurrency: Race conditions, deadlocks, thread safety

Architecture Review

  • Design Patterns: Appropriate pattern usage
  • Separation of Concerns: Single Responsibility Principle
  • Dependencies: Dependency injection, coupling
  • Scalability: Horizontal/vertical scaling considerations
  • API Design: REST/GraphQL best practices, versioning

Review Process

1. Initial Scan (2-3 minutes)

Quick checklist:

  • Does the code compile/run?
  • Are tests passing?
  • What is the scope and purpose of the change?
  • Are there obvious red flags?

2. Functional Review (5-10 minutes)

Verify:

  • Does the code do what it's supposed to do?
  • Are edge cases handled?
  • Is error handling appropriate?
  • Are there any logical errors?

3. Quality Review (10-15 minutes)

Check:

  • Code readability and clarity
  • Naming conventions
  • Code duplication
  • Complexity (cyclomatic complexity, cognitive load)
  • Test coverage and quality

4. Security Review (5-10 minutes)

Look for:

  • Input validation issues
  • Authentication/authorization flaws
  • Sensitive data exposure
  • Insecure dependencies
  • Known vulnerability patterns

5. Performance Review (5-10 minutes)

Analyze:

  • Algorithm efficiency
  • Database query optimization
  • Caching opportunities
  • Resource usage
  • Scalability concerns

Security Checklist

Authentication & Authorization

  • Passwords are hashed (bcrypt, Argon2)
  • No hard-coded credentials
  • Session tokens are secure (HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite)
  • Authorization checks on all protected routes
  • No privilege escalation vulnerabilities

Input Validation

  • All user inputs are validated
  • SQL queries use parameterization
  • No command injection vulnerabilities
  • File uploads are validated (type, size, content)
  • XSS prevention (output encoding)

Data Protection

  • Sensitive data is encrypted at rest
  • HTTPS for data in transit
  • No secrets in code or logs
  • PII is handled according to regulations (GDPR, etc.)
  • Database backups are encrypted

Dependencies

  • Dependencies are up to date
  • No known vulnerabilities (check with npm audit, safety, etc.)
  • Minimal dependency footprint
  • Licenses are compatible

Performance Checklist

Database

  • Appropriate indexes on queried columns
  • No N+1 query problems
  • Batch operations where possible
  • Connection pooling configured
  • Query results are paginated

Caching

  • Frequently accessed data is cached
  • Cache invalidation strategy is correct
  • Cache keys are properly namespaced
  • TTL is appropriate

Algorithms

  • Time complexity is acceptable (O(n²) red flag)
  • Space complexity is reasonable
  • No unnecessary iterations
  • Early returns where possible

Resource Usage

  • No memory leaks
  • Files/connections are properly closed
  • Timeouts are configured
  • Rate limiting on public APIs

Code Quality Checklist

Readability

  • Variable names are descriptive
  • Function names describe what they do
  • Code follows project style guide
  • Indentation and formatting are consistent
  • Complex logic has comments explaining "why"

Maintainability

  • No code duplication (DRY)
  • Functions are small and focused
  • Classes follow Single Responsibility
  • Dependencies are loosely coupled
  • Magic numbers are replaced with named constants

Testing

  • Unit tests cover core functionality
  • Edge cases are tested
  • Error cases are tested
  • Tests are independent
  • Test names are descriptive

Documentation

  • Public APIs have documentation
  • Complex algorithms are explained
  • README is updated if needed
  • CHANGELOG is updated
  • Breaking changes are documented

Example Review Comments

Security Issue

**Security: SQL Injection Vulnerability** (Critical)

**Location**: `src/api/users.ts:45`

The current implementation concatenates user input directly into SQL queries, creating a SQL injection vulnerability.

**Current code:**
```typescript
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE username = '${username}'`;

Recommended:

const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE username = ?';
const users = await db.query(query, [username]);

This prevents attackers from injecting malicious SQL code through the username parameter.


### Performance Issue

Performance: N+1 Query Problem (High)

Location: src/services/orders.ts:120

The current implementation executes a separate query for each order item, resulting in N+1 database queries.

Current code:

for (const order of orders) {
  order.items = await db.query('SELECT * FROM order_items WHERE order_id = ?', [
    order.id,
  ]);
}

Recommended:

const orderIds = orders.map((o) => o.id);
const allItems = await db.query(
  'SELECT * FROM order_items WHERE order_id IN (?)',
  [orderIds]
);

// Group items by order_id
const itemsByOrder = allItems.reduce((acc, item) => {
  if (!acc[item.order_id]) acc[item.order_id] = [];
  acc[item.order_id].push(item);
  return acc;
}, {});

orders.forEach((order) => {
  order.items = itemsByOrder[order.id] || [];
});

This reduces database round-trips from N+1 to 2 queries total.


### Code Quality Issue

Code Quality: Function Too Complex (Medium)

Location: src/utils/validation.ts:25

The validateUser function has a cyclomatic complexity of 15, making it hard to understand and maintain.

Suggestion: Break this function into smaller, focused validation functions:

function validateUser(user: User): ValidationResult {
  return {
    ...validateUsername(user.username),
    ...validateEmail(user.email),
    ...validatePassword(user.password),
    ...validateAge(user.age),
  };
}

function validateUsername(username: string): ValidationResult {
  if (!username || username.length < 3) {
    return { valid: false, error: 'Username must be at least 3 characters' };
  }
  return { valid: true };
}

This improves readability and makes each validation easier to test independently.


## Resources

- **Code Review Best Practices**: [Google Engineering Practices](https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/)
- **Security Guidelines**: [OWASP Top 10](https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/)
- **Clean Code**: Robert C. Martin's "Clean Code"
- **Code Complete**: Steve McConnell's "Code Complete 2"

## Final Review Checklist

Before approving:

- [ ] All critical and high-priority issues addressed
- [ ] Tests are passing
- [ ] No security vulnerabilities
- [ ] Performance is acceptable
- [ ] Code follows project standards
- [ ] Documentation is updated
- [ ] Breaking changes are noted
- [ ] Feedback is constructive and specific

Reference Documentation

Detailed material lives alongside this skill and is read on demand:

  • Review Guidelines — Provide Constructive Feedback, Use the Right Tone, Prioritize Issues, Pattern 1: Error Handling, Pattern 2: Input Validation, Pattern 3: Resource Management, Pattern 4: Null/Undefined Handling