本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

python-code-review

Reviews Python code for type safety, async patterns, error handling, and common mistakes. Use when reviewing .py files, checking type hints, async/await usage, or exception handling.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(6)

  • SKILL.md4.6 KB
  • references/async-patterns.md2.4 KB
  • references/common-mistakes.md2.7 KB
  • references/error-handling.md2.4 KB
  • references/pep8-style.md4.0 KB
  • references/type-safety.md1.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Python Code Review

Quick Reference

Issue TypeReference
Indentation, line length, whitespace, namingreferences/pep8-style.md
Missing/wrong type hints, Any usagereferences/type-safety.md
Blocking calls in async, missing awaitreferences/async-patterns.md
Bare except, missing context, loggingreferences/error-handling.md
Mutable defaults, print statementsreferences/common-mistakes.md

Review Checklist

PEP8 Style

  • 4-space indentation (no tabs)
  • Line length ≤79 characters (≤72 for docstrings/comments)
  • Two blank lines around top-level definitions, one within classes
  • Imports grouped: stdlib → third-party → local (blank line between groups)
  • No whitespace inside brackets or before colons/commas
  • Naming: snake_case for functions/variables, CamelCase for classes, UPPER_CASE for constants
  • Inline comments separated by at least two spaces

Type Safety

  • Type hints on all function parameters and return types
  • No Any unless necessary (with comment explaining why)
  • Proper T | None syntax (Python 3.10+)

Async Patterns

  • No blocking calls (time.sleep, requests) in async functions
  • Proper await on all coroutines

Error Handling

  • No bare except: clauses
  • Specific exception types with context
  • raise ... from to preserve stack traces

Common Mistakes

  • No mutable default arguments
  • Using logger not print() for output
  • f-strings preferred over .format() or %

Valid Patterns (Do NOT Flag)

These patterns are intentional and correct - do not report as issues:

  • Type annotation vs type assertion - Annotations declare types but are not runtime assertions; don't confuse with missing validation
  • Using Any when interacting with untyped libraries - Required when external libraries lack type stubs
  • Empty __init__.py files - Valid for package structure, no code required
  • noqa comments - Valid when linter rule doesn't apply to specific case
  • Using cast() after runtime type check - Correct pattern to inform type checker of narrowed type

Context-Sensitive Rules

Only flag these issues when the specific conditions apply:

IssueFlag ONLY IF
Generic exception handlingSpecific exception types are available and meaningful
Unused variablesVariable lacks _ prefix AND isn't used in f-strings, logging, or debugging

Gates (reporting workflow)

Complete in order. Do not advance until each pass condition is met.

  1. Scope — Pass: You list every .py path (or explicit glob) you inspected this run.
  2. False-positive screen — Pass: For each issue you plan to report, you checked Valid Patterns and Context-Sensitive Rules above; you drop or narrow the finding if those sections say not to flag it.
  3. Evidence — Pass: Each remaining finding includes [FILE:LINE] (or a bounded line range). Symbols or short verbatim snippets may supplement the location anchor but do not replace it.
  4. Verification protocol — Pass: You load review-verification-protocol and complete its mandatory steps for each reported issue before the user-facing write-up.
  5. Ship — Pass: The user-visible output matches whatever structure that protocol requires (no issues-only dump that skips its checks).

When to Load References

  • Reviewing code formatting/style → pep8-style.md
  • Reviewing function signatures → type-safety.md
  • Reviewing async def functions → async-patterns.md
  • Reviewing try/except blocks → error-handling.md
  • General Python review → common-mistakes.md

Review Questions

  1. Does the code follow PEP8 formatting (indentation, line length, whitespace)?
  2. Are imports properly grouped (stdlib → third-party → local)?
  3. Do names follow conventions (snake_case, CamelCase, UPPER_CASE)?
  4. Are all function signatures fully typed?
  5. Are async functions truly non-blocking?
  6. Do exceptions include meaningful context?
  7. Are there any mutable default arguments?

Before reporting: complete Gates (reporting workflow) above (especially gate 4).

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Use when you need to mine a conversation, session transcript, or design discussion for architectural decisions before writing ADRs. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off debates, technology choices, and explicit "[ADR]" tags. Triggers on "what decisions did we make", "extract decisions from this chat", "find the choices in our discussion", or "summarize architectural decisions". Also useful after long planning sessions to capture decisions that were made implicitly. Does NOT write ADR documents — use adr-writing or write-adr for that.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

Use when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on "write the ADR", "format as MADR", "check ADR quality", "mark gaps in ADR". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

Use when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on "analyze agent architecture", "12-factor audit", "how compliant is this agent", or "evaluate this LLM app". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists — this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

Vercel AI Elements for workflow UI components. Use when building chat interfaces, displaying tool execution, showing reasoning/thinking, or creating job queues. Triggers on ai-elements, Queue, Confirmation, Tool, Reasoning, Shimmer, Loader, Message, Conversation, PromptInput.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

Reviews App Intents code for intent structure, entities, shortcuts, and parameters. Use when reviewing code with import AppIntents, @AppIntent, AppEntity, AppShortcutsProvider, or @Parameter.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

Use when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: "analyze these docs", "scan my project for context", "read the docs folder", "summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/", "extract context from docs/", "what's in this folder", "go read everything in X and tell me what's there". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

existential-birds/beagle822026年9月16日 更新

existential-birds のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する