Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →PR size-based review depth, performance review checklist, architecture conformance checks, and framework-specific review patterns.
.claude/skills/diff-review-strategy/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| Category | Lines Changed | Review Depth | Action | |----------|--------------|--------------|--------| | XS | 1–10 | Quick scan | Auto-approve if tests pass, typo/doc fixes | | S | 11–50 | Focused | Check edge cases, naming, one logic path | | M | 51–200 | Thorough | Full logic review, design check, test coverage | | L | 201–500 | Walkthrough | Request author explanation, check design first | | XL | 500+ | Split required | Block merge, ask to split into logical units |
[ ] Does the change do exactly what the title says?
[ ] Are edge cases handled (null, empty, out-of-range)?
[ ] Are variable names clear?
[ ] Are tests updated or added?[ ] Is the design the simplest solution?
[ ] Are error paths handled?
[ ] Is there duplication that should be extracted?
[ ] Does it follow existing patterns in the codebase?
[ ] Are there security implications (user input, auth)?
[ ] Is the test coverage meaningful (not just happy path)?1. Read the PR description and linked ticket first
2. Review architecture/design before line-by-line reading
3. Request a walkthrough if intent is unclear
4. If XL: comment "Please split by [feature / layer / file]"[ ] N+1 query? (loop calling DB inside a loop)
[ ] Missing index on filtered/sorted column?
[ ] SELECT * where only specific columns needed?
[ ] Missing pagination on list endpoints?
[ ] Transaction missing on multi-step writes?[ ] Unnecessary re-renders? (missing memo/useCallback/useMemo)
[ ] Large component re-renders on every keystroke?
[ ] Images missing width/height (layout shift)?
[ ] Heavy dependency imported at top level (should be lazy)?
[ ] Bundle size impact? (check with next build or vite --report)[ ] Synchronous I/O inside async handler?
[ ] Missing cache for repeated identical queries?
[ ] Large payload returned when only summary needed?
[ ] Polling where event/webhook would be better?Controller → Service → Repository → DB (ALLOWED)
Controller → Repository → DB (VIOLATION: skip service)
Service → Controller (VIOLATION: wrong direction)
Repository → Service (VIOLATION: wrong direction)Red flags in the diff:
import { db } from '../db' inside a route handler fileimport { Router } from 'express' inside a service filefetch() calls inside a React component (should be in a hook or service)Entities (innermost) — no imports from outer rings
Use Cases — import Entities only
Adapters — import Use Cases and Entities
Frameworks — import everything, imported by nothing[ ] Does feature A import from feature B's internals?
[ ] If yes, should this be a shared utility or event instead?
[ ] Are feature-specific types leaking into shared modules?[ ] Hooks called conditionally? (rules of hooks violation)
[ ] Missing key prop in lists? Or key is array index?
[ ] useEffect missing cleanup return for subscriptions/timers?
[ ] State mutation instead of new object? ({ ...prev, field: val })
[ ] Prop drilling 3+ levels deep? (consider context or composition)[ ] Data fetching happening client-side when it could be server-side?
[ ] 'use client' added unnecessarily to a component with no interactivity?
[ ] Large third-party lib imported in a Server Component?
[ ] Dynamic route missing generateStaticParams for static generation?
[ ] API route missing input validation?[ ] Middleware added in wrong order? (auth before body-parser?)
[ ] Error handler missing 4-argument signature (err, req, res, next)?
[ ] Async handler missing try/catch or asyncHandler wrapper?
[ ] User input used directly in SQL/file path/shell command?
[ ] Missing rate limiter on public endpoints?nit: Consider renaming `data` to `userProfile` for clarity — easy to
confuse with the raw API response above.suggestion: This could use `Promise.all` to run both requests in
parallel instead of sequentially. Would save ~300ms per call.
// instead of:
const a = await fetchA()
const b = await fetchB()
// consider:
const [a, b] = await Promise.all([fetchA(), fetchB()])blocker: This passes `req.params.id` directly into the SQL query
string — SQL injection risk. Use a parameterized query:
db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1', [req.params.id])nice: Clean separation of concerns here. The service layer staying
unaware of the HTTP layer makes this easy to test.| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +23 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.