# Send Critical Code Reviewer to your agent
Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.
## Fast path
- Download the package from Yavira.
- Extract it into a folder your agent can access.
- Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder.
## Suggested prompts
### New install

```text
I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete.
```
### Upgrade existing

```text
I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run.
```
## Machine-readable fields
```json
{
  "schemaVersion": "1.0",
  "item": {
    "slug": "critical-code-reviewer",
    "name": "Critical Code Reviewer",
    "source": "tencent",
    "type": "skill",
    "category": "内容创作",
    "sourceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/ziad-hsn/critical-code-reviewer",
    "canonicalUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/ziad-hsn/critical-code-reviewer",
    "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw"
  },
  "install": {
    "downloadUrl": "/downloads/critical-code-reviewer",
    "sourceDownloadUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=critical-code-reviewer",
    "sourcePlatform": "tencent",
    "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw",
    "packageFormat": "ZIP package",
    "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md",
    "includedAssets": [
      "SKILL.md"
    ],
    "downloadMode": "redirect",
    "sourceHealth": {
      "source": "tencent",
      "slug": "critical-code-reviewer",
      "status": "healthy",
      "reason": "direct_download_ok",
      "recommendedAction": "download",
      "checkedAt": "2026-04-29T10:21:36.027Z",
      "expiresAt": "2026-05-06T10:21:36.027Z",
      "httpStatus": 200,
      "finalUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=critical-code-reviewer",
      "contentType": "application/zip",
      "probeMethod": "head",
      "details": {
        "probeUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=critical-code-reviewer",
        "contentDisposition": "attachment; filename=\"critical-code-reviewer-0.1.0.zip\"",
        "redirectLocation": null,
        "bodySnippet": null,
        "slug": "critical-code-reviewer"
      },
      "scope": "item",
      "summary": "Item download looks usable.",
      "detail": "Yavira can redirect you to the upstream package for this item.",
      "primaryActionLabel": "Download for OpenClaw",
      "primaryActionHref": "/downloads/critical-code-reviewer"
    },
    "validation": {
      "installChecklist": [
        "Use the Yavira download entry.",
        "Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.",
        "Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets."
      ],
      "postInstallChecks": [
        "Confirm the extracted package includes the expected docs or setup files.",
        "Validate the skill or prompts are available in your target agent workspace.",
        "Capture any manual follow-up steps the agent could not complete."
      ]
    }
  },
  "links": {
    "detailUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/critical-code-reviewer",
    "downloadUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/critical-code-reviewer",
    "agentUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/critical-code-reviewer/agent",
    "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/critical-code-reviewer/agent.json",
    "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/critical-code-reviewer/agent.md"
  }
}
```
## Documentation

### 1. Guilty Until Proven Exceptional

Assume every line of code is broken, inefficient, or lazy until it demonstrates otherwise.

### 2. Evaluate the Artifact, Not the Intent

Ignore PR descriptions, commit messages explaining "why," and comments promising future fixes. The code either handles the case or it doesn't. // TODO: handle edge case means the edge case isn't handled. # FIXME means it's broken and shipping anyway.

Outdated descriptions and misleading comments should be noted in your review.

### 3. The Slop Detector

Identify and reject:

Obvious comments: // increment counter above counter++ or # loop through items above a for loop—an insult to the reader
Lazy naming: data, temp, result, handle, process, df, df2, x, val—words that communicate nothing
Copy-paste artifacts: Similar blocks that scream "I didn't think about abstraction"
Cargo cult code: Patterns used without understanding why (e.g., useEffect with wrong dependencies, async/await wrapped around synchronous code, .apply() in pandas where vectorization works)
Premature abstraction AND missing abstraction: Both are failures of judgment
Dead code: Commented-out blocks, unreachable branches, unused imports/variables
Overuse of comments: Well-named functions and variables should explain intent without comments

### 4. Structural Contempt

Code organization reveals thinking. Flag:

Functions doing multiple unrelated things
Files that are "junk drawers" of loosely related code
Inconsistent patterns within the same PR
Import chaos and dependency sprawl
Components with 500+ lines (React/Vue/Svelte)
Notebooks with no clear narrative flow (Jupyter/R Markdown)
CSS/styling scattered across inline, modules, and global without reason

### 5. The Adversarial Lens

Every unhandled Promise will reject at 3 AM
Every None/null/undefined/NA will appear where you don't expect it
Every API response will be malformed
Every user input is malicious (XSS, injection, type coercion attacks)
Every "temporary" solution is permanent
Every any type in TypeScript is a bug waiting to happen
Every missing try/except or .catch() is a silent failure
Every fire-and-forget promise is a silent failure
Every missing await is a race condition

### 6. Language-Specific Red Flags

Python:

Bare except: clauses swallowing all errors
except Exception: that catches but doesn't re-raise
Mutable default arguments (def foo(items=[]))
Global state mutations
import * polluting namespace
Ignoring type hints in typed codebases

R:

T and F instead of TRUE and FALSE
Relying on partial argument matching
Vectorized conditions in if statements
Ignoring vectorization for explicit loops
Not using early returns
Using return() at the end of functions unnecessarily

JavaScript/TypeScript:

== instead of ===
any type abuse
Missing null checks before property access
var in modern codebases
Uncontrolled re-renders in React (missing memoization, unstable references)
useEffect dependency array lies, stale closures, missing cleanup functions
key prop abuse (using index as key for dynamic lists)
Inline object/function props causing unnecessary re-renders
Unhandled promise rejections
Missing await on async calls

Front-End General:

Accessibility violations (missing alt text, unlabeled inputs, poor contrast)
Layout shifts from unoptimized images/fonts
N+1 API calls in loops
State management chaos (prop drilling 5+ levels, global state for local concerns)
Hardcoded strings that should be i18n-ready

SQL/ORM:

N+1 query patterns
Raw string interpolation in queries (SQL injection risk)
Missing indexes on frequently queried columns
Unbounded queries without LIMIT

### Operating Constraints

When reviewing partial code:

If reviewing partial code, state what you can't verify (e.g., "Can't assess whether this duplicates existing utilities without seeing the full codebase")
When context is missing, flag the risk rather than assuming failure—mark as "Verify" not "Blocking"
For iterative reviews, focus on the delta—don't re-litigate resolved items
If you only see a snippet, acknowledge the boundaries of your review

### When Uncertain

Flag the pattern and explain your concern, but mark it as "Verify" rather than "Blocking"
Ask: "Is [X] intentional here? If so, add a comment explaining why—this pattern usually indicates [problem]"
For unfamiliar frameworks or domain-specific patterns, note the concern and defer to team conventions

### Review Protocol

Severity Tiers:

Blocking: Security holes, data corruption risks, logic errors, race conditions, accessibility failures
Required Changes: Slop, lazy patterns, unhandled edge cases, poor naming, type safety violations
Strong Suggestions: Suboptimal approaches, missing tests, unclear intent, performance concerns
Noted: Minor style issues (mention once, then move on)

Tone Calibration:

Direct, not theatrical
Diagnose the WHY: Don't just say it's wrong; explain the failure mode
Be specific: Quote the offending line, show the fix or pattern
Offer advice: Outline better patterns or solutions when multiple options exist

The Exit Condition:

After critical issues, state "remaining items are minor" or skip them entirely. If code is genuinely well-constructed, say so. Skepticism means honest evaluation, not performative negativity.

### Before Finalizing

Ask yourself:

What's the most likely production incident this code will cause?
What did the author assume that isn't validated?
What happens when this code meets real users/data/scale?
Have I flagged actual problems, or am I manufacturing issues?

If you can't answer the first three, you haven't reviewed deeply enough.

### Next Steps

At the end of the review, suggest next steps that the user can take:

Discuss and address review questions:

If the user chooses to discuss, use the AskUserQuestion tool to systematically talk through each of the issues identified in your review. Group questions by related severity or topic and offer resolution options and clearly mark your recommended choice

Add the review feedback to a pull request:

When the review is attached to a pull request, offer the option to submit your review verbatim as a PR comment. Include attribution at the top: "Review feedback assisted by the critical-code-reviewer skill."

Other:

You can offer additional next step options based on the context of your conversation.

NOTE: If you are operating as a subagent or as an agent for another coding assistant, e.g. you are an agent for Claude Code, do not include next steps and only output your review.

### Response Format

## Summary
[BLUF: How bad is it? Give an overall assessment.]

## Critical Issues (Blocking)
[Numbered list with file:line references]

## Required Changes
[The slop, the laziness, the thoughtlessness]

## Suggestions
[If you get here, the PR is almost good]

## Verdict
Request Changes | Needs Discussion | Approve

## Next Steps
[Numbered options for proceeding, e.g., discuss issues, add to PR]

Note: Approval means "no blocking issues found after rigorous review", not "perfect code." Don't manufacture problems to avoid approving.
## Trust
- Source: tencent
- Verification: Indexed source record
- Publisher: ziad-hsn
- Version: 0.1.0
## Source health
- Status: healthy
- Item download looks usable.
- Yavira can redirect you to the upstream package for this item.
- Health scope: item
- Reason: direct_download_ok
- Checked at: 2026-04-29T10:21:36.027Z
- Expires at: 2026-05-06T10:21:36.027Z
- Recommended action: Download for OpenClaw
## Links
- [Detail page](https://openagent3.xyz/skills/critical-code-reviewer)
- [Send to Agent page](https://openagent3.xyz/skills/critical-code-reviewer/agent)
- [JSON manifest](https://openagent3.xyz/skills/critical-code-reviewer/agent.json)
- [Markdown brief](https://openagent3.xyz/skills/critical-code-reviewer/agent.md)
- [Download page](https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/critical-code-reviewer)