classifying-review-findings

Included with Lifetime

$97 forever

Use this skill when categorizing code review findings into severity levels. Apply when determining which emoji and label to use for PR comments, deciding if an issue should be flagged at all, or classifying findings as CRITICAL, IMPORTANT, DEBT, SUGGESTED, or QUESTION.

Code Review

What this skill does


# Classifying Review Findings

## Severity Categories

| Emoji | Category  | Criteria                                                                       |
| ----- | --------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| ❌    | CRITICAL  | Will break, crash, expose data, or violate requirements                        |
| ⚠️    | IMPORTANT | Missing error handling, unhandled edge cases, could cause bugs                 |
| ♻️    | DEBT      | Duplicates patterns, violates conventions, needs rework within 6 months        |
| 🎨    | SUGGESTED | Measurably improves security, reduces complexity by 3+, eliminates bug classes |
| ❓    | QUESTION  | Requires human knowledge - unclear requirements, intent, or system conflicts   |

**ALWAYS** use hybrid emoji + text format for each finding (if multiple severities apply, use the most severe: ❌ > ⚠️ > ♻️ > 🎨 > ❓):

## Before Classifying

Verify ALL three:

1. Can you trace the execution path showing incorrect behavior?
2. Is this handled elsewhere (error boundaries, middleware, validators)?
3. Are you certain about framework behavior and language semantics?

**If any answer is "no" or "unsure" → DO NOT classify as a finding.**

## Not Valid Findings (Reject)

- Praise ("great implementation")
- Vague suggestions ("could be simpler")
- Style preferences without enforced standard
- Naming nitpicks unless actively misleading
- PR metadata issues (title, description, test plan) - handled by summary skill, not classified here
- Renovate/Dependabot minor/patch updates to existing dependencies with passing CI — these are routine Stage 5 monitoring, not reviewable findings

## Suggested Improvements (🎨) Criteria

**Only suggest improvements that provide measurable value:**

1. **Security gain** - Eliminates entire vulnerability class (SQL injection, XSS, etc.)
2. **Complexity reduction** - Reduces cyclomatic complexity by 3+, eliminates nesting level
3. **Bug prevention** - Makes entire category of bugs impossible (type safety, null safety)
4. **Performance gain** - Reduces O(n²) to O(n), eliminates N+1 queries (provide evidence)

**Provide concrete metrics:**

- ❌ "This could be simpler"
- ✅ "This has cyclomatic complexity of 12; extracting validation logic would reduce to 6"

**If you can't measure the improvement, don't suggest it.**

Files: 1

Size: 2.7 KB

Complexity: 7/100

Category: Code Review

Source: https://github.com/bitwarden/ai-plugins/tree/main/plugins/bitwarden-code-review/skills/classifying-review-findings

Related in Code Review

gstack

Included

Fast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate pages, interact with elements, verify state, diff before/after, take annotated screenshots, test responsive layouts, forms, uploads, dialogs, and capture bug evidence. Use when asked to open or test a site, verify a deployment, dogfood a user flow, or file a bug with screenshots. (gstack)

Code Reviewscriptsfeatured

startup-due-diligence

Included

Legal due diligence review for seed-stage and Series A startups (US, Delaware C-Corp focus). Supports both investor and founder perspectives. Capabilities include: (1) Interactive document review and issue spotting; (2) Document request list generation; (3) Cap table and SAFE/convertible note analysis; (4) Red flag identification with severity ratings; (5) Diligence report generation. TRIGGERS: due diligence, DD, startup investment, cap table review, Series A, seed round, investor diligence, legal review startup, SAFE analysis, convertible note, 409A, founder vesting.

Code Reviewscripts

interview-master

Included

This skill should be used when the user asks to "generate interview questions", "prepare for interview", "optimize resume", "conduct mock interview", "analyze git commits for resume", "generate resume from code", "review my resume", or mentions interview preparation, career assistance, or extracting project experience from git history. Provides comprehensive interview and career development guidance for both job seekers and interviewers.

Code Reviewscripts

fix-issue

Included

Fixes GitHub issues using parallel analysis agents for root cause investigation, code exploration, and regression detection. Reads issue context from gh CLI, searches codebase and memory for related patterns, generates a fix with tests, and links the resolution back to the issue via PR. Includes prevention analysis to avoid recurrence. Use when debugging errors, resolving regressions, fixing bugs, or triaging issues.

Code Reviewscripts

sf-apex

Included

Generates and reviews Salesforce Apex code with 150-point scoring. TRIGGER when: user writes, reviews, or fixes Apex classes, triggers, test classes, batch/queueable/schedulable jobs, or touches .cls/.trigger files. DO NOT TRIGGER when: LWC JavaScript (use sf-lwc), Flow XML (use sf-flow), SOQL-only queries (use sf-soql), or non-Salesforce code.

Code Reviewscripts

swift-development

Included

Comprehensive Swift development for building, testing, and deploying iOS/macOS applications. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Build Swift packages or Xcode projects from command line, (2) Run tests with XCTest or Swift Testing framework, (3) Manage iOS simulators with simctl, (4) Handle code signing, provisioning profiles, and app distribution, (5) Format or lint Swift code with SwiftFormat/SwiftLint, (6) Work with Swift Package Manager (SPM), (7) Implement Swift 6 concurrency patterns (async/await, actors, Sendable), (8) Create SwiftUI views with MVVM architecture, (9) Set up Core Data or SwiftData persistence, or any other Swift/iOS/macOS development tasks.

Code Reviewscripts