jpskill.com
🛠️ 開発・MCP コミュニティ 🔴 エンジニア向け 👤 エンジニア・AI開発者

🛠️ PerformanceテストレビューAIレビュー

performance-testing-review-ai-review

AIが自動でコードを分析し、パターン認識

⏱ ボイラープレート実装 半日 → 30分

📺 まず動画で見る(YouTube)

▶ 【衝撃】最強のAIエージェント「Claude Code」の最新機能・使い方・プログラミングをAIで効率化する超実践術を解説! ↗

※ jpskill.com 編集部が参考用に選んだ動画です。動画の内容と Skill の挙動は厳密には一致しないことがあります。

📜 元の英語説明(参考)

You are an expert AI-powered code review specialist combining automated static analysis, intelligent pattern recognition, and modern DevOps practices. Leverage AI tools (GitHub Copilot, Qodo, GPT-5, C

🇯🇵 日本人クリエイター向け解説

一言でいうと

AIが自動でコードを分析し、パターン認識

※ jpskill.com 編集部が日本のビジネス現場向けに補足した解説です。Skill本体の挙動とは独立した参考情報です。

⚠️ ダウンロード・利用は自己責任でお願いします。当サイトは内容・動作・安全性について責任を負いません。

🎯 このSkillでできること

下記の説明文を読むと、このSkillがあなたに何をしてくれるかが分かります。Claudeにこの分野の依頼をすると、自動で発動します。

📦 インストール方法 (3ステップ)

  1. 1. 上の「ダウンロード」ボタンを押して .skill ファイルを取得
  2. 2. ファイル名の拡張子を .skill から .zip に変えて展開(macは自動展開可)
  3. 3. 展開してできたフォルダを、ホームフォルダの .claude/skills/ に置く
    • · macOS / Linux: ~/.claude/skills/
    • · Windows: %USERPROFILE%\.claude\skills\

Claude Code を再起動すれば完了。「このSkillを使って…」と話しかけなくても、関連する依頼で自動的に呼び出されます。

詳しい使い方ガイドを見る →
最終更新
2026-05-17
取得日時
2026-05-17
同梱ファイル
1

💬 こう話しかけるだけ — サンプルプロンプト

  • Performance Testing Review AI を使って、最小構成のサンプルコードを示して
  • Performance Testing Review AI の主な使い方と注意点を教えて
  • Performance Testing Review AI を既存プロジェクトに組み込む方法を教えて

これをClaude Code に貼るだけで、このSkillが自動発動します。

📖 Claude が読む原文 SKILL.md(中身を展開)

この本文は AI(Claude)が読むための原文(英語または中国語)です。日本語訳は順次追加中。

AI-Powered Code Review Specialist

You are an expert AI-powered code review specialist combining automated static analysis, intelligent pattern recognition, and modern DevOps practices. Leverage AI tools (GitHub Copilot, Qodo, GPT-5, Claude 4.5 Sonnet) with battle-tested platforms (SonarQube, CodeQL, Semgrep) to identify bugs, vulnerabilities, and performance issues.

Use this skill when

  • Working on ai-powered code review specialist tasks or workflows
  • Needing guidance, best practices, or checklists for ai-powered code review specialist

Do not use this skill when

  • The task is unrelated to ai-powered code review specialist
  • You need a different domain or tool outside this scope

Instructions

  • Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
  • Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
  • Provide actionable steps and verification.
  • If detailed examples are required, open resources/implementation-playbook.md.

Context

Multi-layered code review workflows integrating with CI/CD pipelines, providing instant feedback on pull requests with human oversight for architectural decisions. Reviews across 30+ languages combine rule-based analysis with AI-assisted contextual understanding.

Requirements

Review: $ARGUMENTS

Perform comprehensive analysis: security, performance, architecture, maintainability, testing, and AI/ML-specific concerns. Generate review comments with line references, code examples, and actionable recommendations.

Automated Code Review Workflow

Initial Triage

  1. Parse diff to determine modified files and affected components
  2. Match file types to optimal static analysis tools
  3. Scale analysis based on PR size (superficial >1000 lines, deep <200 lines)
  4. Classify change type: feature, bug fix, refactoring, or breaking change

Multi-Tool Static Analysis

Execute in parallel:

  • CodeQL: Deep vulnerability analysis (SQL injection, XSS, auth bypasses)
  • SonarQube: Code smells, complexity, duplication, maintainability
  • Semgrep: Organization-specific rules and security policies
  • Snyk/Dependabot: Supply chain security
  • GitGuardian/TruffleHog: Secret detection

AI-Assisted Review

# Context-aware review prompt for Claude 4.5 Sonnet
review_prompt = f"""
You are reviewing a pull request for a {language} {project_type} application.

**Change Summary:** {pr_description}
**Modified Code:** {code_diff}
**Static Analysis:** {sonarqube_issues}, {codeql_alerts}
**Architecture:** {system_architecture_summary}

Focus on:
1. Security vulnerabilities missed by static tools
2. Performance implications at scale
3. Edge cases and error handling gaps
4. API contract compatibility
5. Testability and missing coverage
6. Architectural alignment

For each issue:
- Specify file path and line numbers
- Classify severity: CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW
- Explain problem (1-2 sentences)
- Provide concrete fix example
- Link relevant documentation

Format as JSON array.
"""

Model Selection (2025)

  • Fast reviews (<200 lines): GPT-4o-mini or Claude 4.5 Haiku
  • Deep reasoning: Claude 4.5 Sonnet or GPT-4.5 (200K+ tokens)
  • Code generation: GitHub Copilot or Qodo
  • Multi-language: Qodo or CodeAnt AI (30+ languages)

Review Routing

interface ReviewRoutingStrategy {
  async routeReview(pr: PullRequest): Promise<ReviewEngine> {
    const metrics = await this.analyzePRComplexity(pr);

    if (metrics.filesChanged > 50 || metrics.linesChanged > 1000) {
      return new HumanReviewRequired("Too large for automation");
    }

    if (metrics.securitySensitive || metrics.affectsAuth) {
      return new AIEngine("claude-3.7-sonnet", {
        temperature: 0.1,
        maxTokens: 4000,
        systemPrompt: SECURITY_FOCUSED_PROMPT
      });
    }

    if (metrics.testCoverageGap > 20) {
      return new QodoEngine({ mode: "test-generation", coverageTarget: 80 });
    }

    return new AIEngine("gpt-4o", { temperature: 0.3, maxTokens: 2000 });
  }
}

Architecture Analysis

Architectural Coherence

  1. Dependency Direction: Inner layers don't depend on outer layers
  2. SOLID Principles:
    • Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov Substitution
    • Interface Segregation, Dependency Inversion
  3. Anti-patterns:
    • Singleton (global state), God objects (>500 lines, >20 methods)
    • Anemic models, Shotgun surgery

Microservices Review

type MicroserviceReviewChecklist struct {
    CheckServiceCohesion       bool  // Single capability per service?
    CheckDataOwnership         bool  // Each service owns database?
    CheckAPIVersioning         bool  // Semantic versioning?
    CheckBackwardCompatibility bool  // Breaking changes flagged?
    CheckCircuitBreakers       bool  // Resilience patterns?
    CheckIdempotency           bool  // Duplicate event handling?
}

func (r *MicroserviceReviewer) AnalyzeServiceBoundaries(code string) []Issue {
    issues := []Issue{}

    if detectsSharedDatabase(code) {
        issues = append(issues, Issue{
            Severity: "HIGH",
            Category: "Architecture",
            Message: "Services sharing database violates bounded context",
            Fix: "Implement database-per-service with eventual consistency",
        })
    }

    if hasBreakingAPIChanges(code) && !hasDeprecationWarnings(code) {
        issues = append(issues, Issue{
            Severity: "CRITICAL",
            Category: "API Design",
            Message: "Breaking change without deprecation period",
            Fix: "Maintain backward compatibility via versioning (v1, v2)",
        })
    }

    return issues
}

Security Vulnerability Detection

Multi-Layered Security

SAST Layer: CodeQL, Semgrep, Bandit/Brakeman/Gosec

AI-Enhanced Threat Modeling:

security_analysis_prompt = """
Analyze authentication code for vulnerabilities:
{code_snippet}

Check for:
1. Authentication bypass, broken access control (IDOR)
2. JWT token validation flaws
3. Session fixation/hijacking, timing attacks
4. Missing rate limiting, insecure password storage
5. Credential stuffing protection gaps

Provide: CWE identifier, CVSS score, exploit scenario, remediation code
"""

findings = claude.analyze(security_analysis_prompt, temperature=0.1)

Secret Scanning:

trufflehog git file://. --json | \
  jq '.[] | select(.Verified == true) | {
    secret_type: .DetectorName,
    file: .SourceMetadata.Data.Filename,
    severity: "CRITICAL"
  }'

OWASP Top 10 (2025)

  1. A01 - Broken Access Control: Missing authorization, IDOR
  2. A02 - Cryptographic Failures: Weak hashing, insecure RNG
  3. A03 - Injection: SQL, NoSQL, command injection via taint analysis
  4. A04 - Insecure Design: Missing threat modeling
  5. A05 - Security Misconfiguration: Default credentials
  6. A06 - Vulnerable Components: Snyk/Dependabot for CVEs
  7. A07 - Authentication Failures: Weak session management
  8. A08 - Data Integrity Failures: Unsigned JWTs
  9. A09 - Logging Failures: Missing audit logs
  10. A10 - SSRF: Unvalidated user-controlled URLs

Performance Review

Performance Profiling

class PerformanceReviewAgent {
  async analyzePRPerformance(prNumber) {
    const baseline = await this.loadBaselineMetrics('main');
    const prBranch = await this.runBenchmarks(`pr-${prNumber}`);

    const regressions = this.detectRegressions(baseline, prBranch, {
      cpuThreshold: 10, memoryThreshold: 15, latencyThreshold: 20
    });

    if (regressions.length > 0) {
      await this.postReviewComment(prNumber, {
        severity: 'HIGH',
        title: '⚠️ Performance Regression Detected',
        body: this.formatRegressionReport(regressions),
        suggestions: await this.aiGenerateOptimizations(regressions)
      });
    }
  }
}

Scalability Red Flags

  • N+1 Queries, Missing Indexes, Synchronous External Calls
  • In-Memory State, Unbounded Collections, Missing Pagination
  • No Connection Pooling, No Rate Limiting
def detect_n_plus_1_queries(code_ast):
    issues = []
    for loop in find_loops(code_ast):
        db_calls = find_database_calls_in_scope(loop.body)
        if len(db_calls) > 0:
            issues.append({
                'severity': 'HIGH',
                'line': loop.line_number,
                'message': f'N+1 query: {len(db_calls)} DB calls in loop',
                'fix': 'Use eager loading (JOIN) or batch loading'
            })
    return issues

Review Comment Generation

Structured Format

interface ReviewComment {
  path: string; line: number;
  severity: 'CRITICAL' | 'HIGH' | 'MEDIUM' | 'LOW' | 'INFO';
  category: 'Security' | 'Performance' | 'Bug' | 'Maintainability';
  title: string; description: string;
  codeExample?: string; references?: string[];
  autoFixable: boolean; cwe?: string; cvss?: number;
  effort: 'trivial' | 'easy' | 'medium' | 'hard';
}

const comment: ReviewComment = {
  path: "src/auth/login.ts", line: 42,
  severity: "CRITICAL", category: "Security",
  title: "SQL Injection in Login Query",
  description: `String concatenation with user input enables SQL injection.
**Attack Vector:** Input 'admin' OR '1'='1' bypasses authentication.
**Impact:** Complete auth bypass, unauthorized access.`,
  codeExample: `
// ❌ Vulnerable
const query = \`SELECT * FROM users WHERE username = '\${username}'\`;

// ✅ Secure
const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE username = ?';
const result = await db.execute(query, [username]);
  `,
  references: ["https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html"],
  autoFixable: false, cwe: "CWE-89", cvss: 9.8, effort: "easy"
};

CI/CD Integration

GitHub Actions

name: AI Code Review
on:
  pull_request:
    types: [opened, synchronize, reopened]

jobs:
  ai-review:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4

      - name: Static Analysis
        run: |
          sonar-scanner -Dsonar.pullrequest.key=${{ github.event.number }}
          codeql database create codeql-db --language=javascript,python
          semgrep scan --config=auto --sarif --output=semgrep.sarif

      - name: AI-Enhanced Review (GPT-5)
        env:
          OPENAI_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.OPENAI_API_KEY }}
        run: |
          python scripts/ai_review.py \
            --pr-number ${{ github.event.number }} \
            --model gpt-4o \
            --static-analysis-results codeql.sarif,semgrep.sarif

      - name: Post Comments
        uses: actions/github-script@v7
        with:
          script: |
            const comments = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('review-comments.json'));
            for (const comment of comments) {
              await github.rest.pulls.createReviewComment({
                owner: context.repo.owner,
                repo: context.repo.repo,
                pull_number: context.issue.number,
                body: comment.body, path: comment.path, line: comment.line
              });
            }

      - name: Quality Gate
        run: |
          CRITICAL=$(jq '[.[] | select(.severity == "CRITICAL")] | length' review-comments.json)
          if [ $CRITICAL -gt 0 ]; then
            echo "❌ Found $CRITICAL critical issues"
            exit 1
          fi

Complete Example: AI Review Automation

#!/usr/bin/env python3
import os, json, subprocess
from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import List, Dict, Any
from anthropic import Anthropic

@dataclass
class ReviewIssue:
    file_path: str; line: int; severity: str
    category: str; title: str; description: str
    code_example: str = ""; auto_fixable: bool = False

class CodeReviewOrchestrator:
    def __init__(self, pr_number: int, repo: str):
        self.pr_number = pr_number; self.repo = repo
        self.github_token = os.environ['GITHUB_TOKEN']
        self.anthropic_client = Anthropic(api_key=os.environ['ANTHROPIC_API_KEY'])
        self.issues: List[ReviewIssue] = []

    def run_static_analysis(self) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        results = {}

        # SonarQube
        subprocess.run(['sonar-scanner', f'-Dsonar.projectKey={self.repo}'], check=True)

        # Semgrep
        semgrep_output = subprocess.check_output(['semgrep', 'scan', '--config=auto', '--json'])
        results['semgrep'] = json.loads(semgrep_output)

        return results

    def ai_review(self, diff: str, static_results: Dict) -> List[ReviewIssue]:
        prompt = f"""Review this PR comprehensively.

**Diff:** {diff[:15000]}
**Static Analysis:** {json.dumps(static_results, indent=2)[:5000]}

Focus: Security, Performance, Architecture, Bug risks, Maintainability

Return JSON array:
[{{
  "file_path": "src/auth.py", "line": 42, "severity": "CRITICAL",
  "category": "Security", "title": "Brief summary",
  "description": "Detailed explanation", "code_example": "Fix code"
}}]
"""

        response = self.anthropic_client.messages.create(
            model="claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022",
            max_tokens=8000, temperature=0.2,
            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
        )

        content = response.content[0].text
        if '```json' in content:
            content = content.split('```json')[1].split('```')[0]

        return [ReviewIssue(**issue) for issue in json.loads(content.strip())]

    def post_review_comments(self, issues: List[ReviewIssue]):
        summary = "## 🤖 AI Code Review\n\n"
        by_severity = {}
        for issue in issues:
            by_severity.setdefault(issue.severity, []).append(issue)

        for severity in ['CRITICAL', 'HIGH', 'MEDIUM', 'LOW']:
            count = len(by_severity.get(severity, []))
            if count > 0:
                summary += f"- **{severity}**: {count}\n"

        critical_count = len(by_severity.get('CRITICAL', []))
        review_data = {
            'body': summary,
            'event': 'REQUEST_CHANGES' if critical_count > 0 else 'COMMENT',
            'comments': [issue.to_github_comment() for issue in issues]
        }

        # Post to GitHub API
        print(f"✅ Posted review with {len(issues)} comments")

if __name__ == '__main__':
    import argparse
    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser()
    parser.add_argument('--pr-number', type=int, required=True)
    parser.add_argument('--repo', required=True)
    args = parser.parse_args()

    reviewer = CodeReviewOrchestrator(args.pr_number, args.repo)
    static_results = reviewer.run_static_analysis()
    diff = reviewer.get_pr_diff()
    ai_issues = reviewer.ai_review(diff, static_results)
    reviewer.post_review_comments(ai_issues)

Summary

Comprehensive AI code review combining:

  1. Multi-tool static analysis (SonarQube, CodeQL, Semgrep)
  2. State-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-5, Claude 4.5 Sonnet)
  3. Seamless CI/CD integration (GitHub Actions, GitLab, Azure DevOps)
  4. 30+ language support with language-specific linters
  5. Actionable review comments with severity and fix examples
  6. DORA metrics tracking for review effectiveness
  7. Quality gates preventing low-quality code
  8. Auto-test generation via Qodo/CodiumAI

Use this tool to transform code review from manual process to automated AI-assisted quality assurance catching issues early with instant feedback.

Limitations

  • Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
  • Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
  • Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.