Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →langgenius/backend-code-review
Use only when the user explicitly requests a review or audit of backend code under `api/`. Supports pending-change, file-focused, and pasted-diff reviews.
Passed 21 of 24 test cases with the skill, and 13 of 24 without it.
and 6 more in the full report
9 fixed14 passed either way3 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 9 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
I've submitted a pull request that updates our core domain models and repository access layers. Can you do a thorough review of the modified backend files for bugs, security vulnerabilities, or performance defects? Format the report with severity-ranked findings detailing exact locations, how the bug manifests, its impact, and recommended fixes. If no defects are present, give a brief clear statement indicating no problems were identified.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Includes the exact phrase "No issues found." | Missed | Passed |
| Omits speculative risk lists when code diffs are absent. | Passed | Passed |
| Omits unsolicited offers to perform future code reviews. | Passed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Review the requested scope for concrete, reproducible defects. The nearest AGENTS.md owns package facts and commands; this skill owns the review workflow and routes to its bundled rule packs.
Read only the packs matched by the diff:
references/db-schema-rule.mdreferences/architecture-rule.mdreferences/repositories-rule.mdreferences/sqlalchemy-rule.mdWhen no pack applies, review correctness, security, behavior changes, and test evidence directly. Check current official documentation only when local code and contracts do not settle framework or library behavior.
Lead with findings ordered by severity. Include a tight file and line reference, the failing contract or reproduction path, impact, and a concrete fix direction. If there are no findings, say No issues found. and state any material verification gap. Do not add praise sections, speculative risks, or an unsolicited offer to implement fixes.
test cases passed, vs 13 / 24 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.