langgraph-code-review — Claude Code skill: overview and install
LangGraph code review skill for Claude Code and coding agents. It flags state mutations, missing reducers, and broken graph topologies.
npx skills add existential-birds/beagle --skill langgraph-code-review -a claude-codeWhat langgraph-code-review does
The skill audits LangGraph pipelines through five sequential review gates. It first locates graph definitions like StateGraph, inspects schema types, checks persistence settings, and verifies line citations. The checklist catches direct state mutations like appending to state in-place, missing add_messages or operator.add annotations, and calls to interrupt without a compiled checkpointer.
Contextual priming often makes models hallucinate bugs that do not exist. To counter this, gate 0 requires echoing the exact code snippet and file:line read in the current turn before any finding can be reported. A finding without a same-turn quote is rejected immediately.
The inspection flags topology mistakes before runtime errors occur. It detects graphs missing an edge from START, unreachable orphan nodes, and add_conditional_edges missing route branches. For Command returns, it flags missing destinations arguments that break graph rendering.
What it helps with
- detect in-place state mutations instead of returned partial updates
- find list fields missing
operator.addoradd_messagesreducers - verify checkpointer setup and
thread_idpassing forinterruptcalls - locate orphan nodes and incomplete paths in
add_conditional_edges
Example prompts for the agent
- Review
agent/graph.pyfor LangGraph state management and reducer issues. - Inspect our
StateGraphdefinition and checkpointer configuration. - Audit the graph structure for unreachable nodes and missing entry points.
How to install langgraph-code-review
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add existential-birds/beagle --skill langgraph-code-review -a claude-code2Manually: put the files in place
~/.claude/skills/langgraph-code-review/SKILL.mdCopy the whole skill folder; for one project use .claude/skills/langgraph-code-review/
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add existential-birds/beagle --skill langgraph-code-review -a codex2Manually: put the files in place
.agents/skills/langgraph-code-review/SKILL.mdFor all projects use ~/.agents/skills/
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add existential-birds/beagle --skill langgraph-code-review -a cursor2Manually: put the files in place
.cursor/skills/langgraph-code-review/SKILL.mdCursor also reads .agents/skills/ and .claude/skills/
1GitHub CLI
gh skill install existential-birds/beagle langgraph-code-review2Manually: put the files in place
.github/skills/langgraph-code-review/SKILL.md1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add existential-birds/beagle --skill langgraph-code-review -a gemini-cli2Platform CLI
gemini skills install https://github.com/existential-birds/beagle --path plugins/beagle-ai/skills/langgraph-code-reviewManually: put the files in place
.devin/skills/langgraph-code-review/SKILL.mdThe legacy .windsurf/skills/ path still works
Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add existential-birds/beagle --skill langgraph-code-review -a opencodeClaude.ai
Zip the folder and upload it in Settings → Capabilities → Skills
Step by step, with commands for each platform: How to install skills in Claude Code: five ways
Questions about langgraph-code-review
How to install langgraph-code-review in Claude Code?
Run npx skills add existential-birds/beagle --skill langgraph-code-review -a claude-code in your terminal. This registers the skill for Claude Code.
What does langgraph-code-review do?
It reviews LangGraph code against a structured checklist covering state schemas, persistence, reducers, and routing logic.
Why does the review require an anti-confabulation step?
Language models can invent issues based on memory or branch context. Gate 0 forces the agent to cite the exact file:line snippet read in the same turn before issuing a finding.
Source text
SKILL.md · Apache-2.0
---
name: langgraph-code-review
description: Reviews LangGraph code for bugs, anti-patterns, and improvements. Use when reviewing code that uses StateGraph, nodes, edges, checkpointing, or other LangGraph features. Catches common mistakes in state management, graph structure, and async patterns.
---
# LangGraph Code Review
When reviewing LangGraph code, check for these categories of issues.
## Anti-confabulation (gate 0 — runs before every other gate)
Before issuing **any** finding — flag a bug, anti-pattern, or improvement — you MUST echo the exact artifact you are judging, quoted from a source you read in **this** turn:
- The code finding: its `file:line` plus the cited code, read freshly now.
- The graph/state code under review: the `StateGraph`, node, edge, or state-schema snippet your finding depends on, quoted from the file you just read.
> The artifact is the only source of truth. **Never** infer what you are reviewing from the branch name, the working directory, surrounding files, or recollection. If your mental model differs from the freshly read source, **the source wins.** A finding issued without a same-turn echo of its target is invalid — emit the echo first, or do not emit the finding.
This gate exists because an LLM under contextual priming will confidently flag code that is not in the file. It runs **before** the gates below.
## Review gates (sequenced)
Complete in order. Each step has an objective pass condition before moving on.
1. **Locate graph code** — Search the review scope for `StateGraph`, `compile(`, `invoke`, `ainvoke`, `add_node`, `add_edge`, `add_conditional_edges`. **Pass:** a short list of file paths (or explicit “none in scope” after searching).
2. **Map state schema** — For each graph state type (`TypedDict`, `BaseModel`, etc.), list fields that hold lists, dicts, or messages and whether `Annotated` + reducers (`add_messages`, `operator.add`, …) are present. **Pass:** every such field is either covered by a reducer pattern below or explicitly flagged as intentional overwrite.
3. **Trace persistence** — If interrupts, `thread_id`, or checkpoint APIs appear, follow them to `compile(..., checkpointer=...)` and invocation `config`. **Pass:** behavior matches the interrupt/checkpointer/thread_id guidance below—or you document a concrete mismatch with file:line.
4. **Report with evidence** — For each finding you will deliver, record **file path and line number(s)** (or a minimal quoted snippet). **Pass:** no critical or high-severity issue is stated without that citation.
5. **Run the checklist** — Use the checklist at the end of this skill; each item is **satisfied**, **not applicable** (with reason), or **open** with evidence. **Pass:** no item left silently unchecked.
## Critical Issues
### 1. State Mutation Instead of Return
```python
# BAD - mutates state directly
def my_node(state: State) -> None:
state["messages"].append(new_message) # Mutation!
# GOOD - returns partial update
def my_node(state: State) -> dict:
return {"messages": [new_message]} # Let reducer handle it
```
### 2. Missing Reducer for List Fields
```python
# BAD - no reducer, each node overwrites
class State(TypedDict):
messages: list # Will be overwritten, not appended!
# GOOD - reducer appends
class State(TypedDict):
messages: Annotated[list, operator.add]
# Or use add_messages for chat:
messages: Annotated[list, add_messages]
```
### 3. Wrong Return Type from Conditional Edge
```python
# BAD - returns invalid node name
def router(state) -> str:
return "nonexistent_node" # Runtime error!
# GOOD - use Literal type hint for safety
def router(state) -> Literal["agent", "tools", "__end__"]:
if condition:
return "agent"
return END # Use constant, not string
```
### 4. Missing Checkpointer for Interrupts
```python
# BAD - interrupt without checkpointer
def my_node(state):
answer = interrupt("question") # Will fail!
return {"answer": answer}
graph = builder.compile() # No checkpointer!
# GOOD - checkpointer required for interrupts
graph = builder.compile(checkpointer=InMemorySaver())
```
### 5. Forgetting Thread ID with Checkpointer
```python
# BAD - no thread_id
graph.invoke({"messages": [...]}) # Error with checkpointer!
# GOOD - always provide thread_id
config = {"configurable": {"thread_id": "user-123"}}
graph.invoke({"messages": [...]}, config)
```
## State Schema Issues
### 6. Using add_messages Without Message Types
```python
# BAD - add_messages expects message-like objects
class State(TypedDict):
messages: Annotated[list, add_messages]
def node(state):
return {"messages": ["plain string"]} # May fail!
# GOOD - use proper message types or tuples
def node(state):
return {"messages": [("assistant", "response")]}
# Or: [AIMessage(content="response")]
```
### 7. Returning Full State Instead of Partial
```python
# BAD - returns entire state (may reset other fields)
def my_node(state: State) -> State:
return {
"counter": state["counter"] + 1,
"messages": state["messages"], # Unnecessary!
"other": state["other"] # Unnecessary!
}
# GOOD - return only changed fields
def my_node(state: State) -> dict:
return {"counter": state["counter"] + 1}
```
### 8. Pydantic State Without Annotations
```python
# BAD - Pydantic model without reducer loses append behavior
class State(BaseModel):
messages: list # No reducer!
# GOOD - use Annotated even with Pydantic
class State(BaseModel):
messages: Annotated[list, add_messages]
```
## Graph Structure Issues
### 9. Missing Entry Point
```python
# BAD - no edge from START
builder.add_node("process", process_fn)
builder.add_edge("process", END)
graph = builder.compile() # Error: no entrypoint!
# GOOD - connect START
builder.add_edge(START, "process")
```
### 10. Unreachable Nodes
```python
# BAD - orphan node
builder.add_node("main", main_fn)
builder.add_node("orphan", orphan_fn) # Never reached!
builder.add_edge(START, "main")
builder.add_edge("main", END)
# Check with visualization
print(graph.get_graph().draw_mermaid())
```
### 11. Conditional Edge Without All Paths
```python
# BAD - missing path in conditional
def router(state) -> Literal["a", "b", "c"]:
...
builder.add_conditional_edges("node", router, {"a": "a", "b": "b"})
# "c" path missing!
# GOOD - include all possible returns
builder.add_conditional_edges("node", router, {"a": "a", "b": "b", "c": "c"})
# Or omit path_map to use return values as node names
```
### 12. Command Without destinations
```python
# BAD - Command return without destinations (breaks visualization)
def dynamic(state) -> Command[Literal["next", "__end__"]]:
return Command(goto="next")
builder.add_node("dynamic", dynamic) # Graph viz won't show edges
# GOOD - declare destinations
builder.add_node("dynamic", dynamic, destinations=["next", END])
```
## Async Issues
### 13. Mixing Sync/Async Incorrectly
```python
# BAD - async node called with sync invoke
async def my_node(state):
result = await async_operation()
return {"result": result}
graph.invoke(input) # May not await properly!
# GOOD - use ainvoke for async graphs
await graph.ainvoke(input)
# Or provide both sync and async versions
```
### 14. Blocking Calls in Async Context
```python
# BAD - blocking call in async node
async def my_node(state):
result = requests.get(url) # Blocks event loop!
return {"result": result}
# GOOD - use async HTTP client
async def my_node(state):
async with httpx.AsyncClient() as client:
result = await client.get(url)
return {"result": result}
```
## Tool Integration Issues
### 15. Tool Calls Without Corresponding ToolMessage
```python
# BAD - AI message with tool_calls but no tool execution
messages = [
HumanMessage(content="search for X"),
AIMessage(content="", tool_calls=[{"id": "1", "name": "search", ...}])
# Missing ToolMessage! Next LLM call will fail
]
# GOOD - always pair tool_calls with ToolMessage
messages = [
HumanMessage(content="search for X"),
AIMessage(content="", tool_calls=[{"id": "1", "name": "search", ...}]),
ToolMessage(content="results", tool_call_id="1")
]
```
### 16. Parallel Tool Calls Before Interrupt
```python
# BAD - model may call multiple tools including interrupt
model = ChatOpenAI().bind_tools([interrupt_tool, other_tool])
# If both called in parallel, interrupt behavior is undefined
# GOOD - disable parallel tool calls before interrupt
model = ChatOpenAI().bind_tools(
[interrupt_tool, other_tool],
parallel_tool_calls=False
)
```
## Checkpointing Issues
### 17. InMemorySaver in Production
```python
# BAD - in-memory checkpointer loses state on restart
graph = builder.compile(checkpointer=InMemorySaver()) # Testing only!
# GOOD - use persistent storage in production
from langgraph.checkpoint.postgres import PostgresSaver
checkpointer = PostgresSaver.from_conn_string(conn_string)
graph = builder.compile(checkpointer=checkpointer)
```
### 18. Subgraph Checkpointer Confusion
```python
# BAD - subgraph with explicit False prevents persistence
subgraph = sub_builder.compile(checkpointer=False)
# GOOD - use None to inherit parent's checkpointer
subgraph = sub_builder.compile(checkpointer=None) # Inherits from parent
# Or True for independent checkpointing
subgraph = sub_builder.compile(checkpointer=True)
```
## Performance Issues
### 19. Large State in Every Update
```python
# BAD - returning large data in every node
def node(state):
large_data = fetch_large_data()
return {"large_field": large_data} # Checkpointed every step!
# GOOD - use references or store
from langgraph.store.memory import InMemoryStore
def node(state, *, store: BaseStore):
store.put(namespace, key, large_data)
return {"data_ref": f"{namespace}/{key}"}
```
### 20. Missing Recursion Limit Handling
```python
# BAD - no protection against infinite loops
def router(state):
return "agent" # Always loops!
# GOOD - check remaining steps or use RemainingSteps
from langgraph.managed import RemainingSteps
class State(TypedDict):
messages: Annotated[list, add_messages]
remaining_steps: RemainingSteps
def check_limit(state):
if state["remaining_steps"] < 2:
return END
return "continue"
```
## Code Review Checklist
1. [ ] State schema uses Annotated with reducers for collections
2. [ ] Nodes return partial state updates, not mutations
3. [ ] Conditional edges return valid node names or END
4. [ ] Graph has path from START to all nodes
5. [ ] Checkpointer provided if using interrupts
6. [ ] Thread ID provided in config when using checkpointer
7. [ ] Tool calls paired with ToolMessages
8. [ ] Async nodes use async operations
9. [ ] Production uses persistent checkpointer
10. [ ] Recursion limits considered for loops
© existential-birds · Apache-2.0 · existential-birds/beagle