5.7K skills · sorted by relevance
Review a GitHub pull request or branch and receive a concise summary of its purpose, design choices, and notable code. Check linked issue acceptance and highlight evidence-based concerns through their observable impact on users.
Use Plannotator to review plans, code changes, documents, and running local apps in a browser. This reference covers returning feedback to agents, browsing past decisions, sharing guided code reviews, and leaving questions for later replies.
Runs repeated reviews and fixes on a Claude Code skill until no critical or major findings remain. Tracks findings across rounds, checks change boundaries, and stops for a design decision when fixes stop making progress.
Create and maintain Code Connect templates that link published Figma components to existing code components. Map text, variants, toggles, and nested components so code examples reflect the selected component's design settings.
Review a research paper alongside its Stata, R, or Python code to check reproducibility, code quality, and agreement with the main findings. Receive a Markdown report with supporting evidence, uncertainties, strengths, and prioritized next steps.
Review web application code against OWASP Top 10 (2021), a list of common security risks. Receive findings with file locations, severity ratings, concrete fix code, and a prioritized list of remediation tasks.
SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; its docs-aware mode covers this variant) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening with living documentation. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan, one question at a time, challenging it against your project's existing domain model and glossary (CONTEXT.md), sharpening fuzzy terms, stress-testing with concrete scenarios, cross-referencing code, and updating CONTEXT.md + ADRs inline as decisions crystallise. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-with-docs-codex", "grill me against the docs then have codex review", "stress-test this against our domain model then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes in a project with established terminology/ADRs and wants alignment, documentation, AND a cross-model sanity check. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-with-docs (MIT). NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial changes.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Delegate a coding task to the OpenAI Codex CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Codex — phrasings like "have Codex do X", "delegate this to Codex", "run it through Codex", or "use Codex to implement/fix/refactor" — or to run a queue of coding tasks through Codex while staying the reviewer. Prefer it over a one-shot Codex forwarder (such as the codex-rescue agent) when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
The pre-merge review of a branch in a project that records its specs, decisions, and rules in .archcore/. Run this first for 'review my branch', 'review the changes before merge', or 'review before merge': it checks the changed code against the project's recorded canon and the changed documents against the code, and reports which side is wrong — spec-wrong or code-wrong; with no diff, it reports project health. A bug-hunting code review complements this review and does not replace it. Also use for 'show status', 'documentation gaps', 'check if docs match code', 'close out the feature', 'ship the feature and close it out', or after a staleness warning. Modes, named as the first word: drift for staleness detection, deep for a full documentation audit, closeout to close a finished feature, experience to capture a repeated pattern. Not for creating docs — use /archcore:document; not for planning — use /archcore:plan; not for a single-file edit with no branch review.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Run an automated codex⇄Claude debate to consensus — no round cap, no deadlock exit. Two explicit subcommands. `review` (also the bare/back-compat default) — codex (reviewer) critiques the current diff and a Claude subagent (author) fixes/disputes, looping until they agree. `answer` — Claude and codex each answer a freeform prompt in parallel, then cross-check until they agree, and a unified answer is returned. Use when the user types `/codex-debate`, asks to "have codex review this", "run the codex debate", "review this PR with codex", "argue this with codex until you agree", or passes a question to "have Claude and codex debate/answer until they agree".
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Conduct comprehensive code reviews identifying bugs, security issues, performance problems, code quality concerns, and best practice violations. Use when reviewing pull requests, examining code changes, evaluating new code, assessing code quality, or providing feedback on implementations. Analyzes code for correctness, security vulnerabilities, performance bottlenecks, maintainability issues, test coverage, documentation quality, and adherence to coding standards. Produces structured markdown reviews with categorized findings, severity ratings, specific examples, and actionable recommendations. Triggers when users ask to review code, check pull requests, evaluate implementations, find bugs, or assess code quality.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Delegate code review to a subagent running a specific model. Use ONLY when user explicitly names a model to review changes ("review with opus", "use sonnet to review", "review with gemini"). The root agent reconstructs changes from conversation history and spawns a subagent with the code-review skill using the specified model. Do NOT use for general code review (use code-review skill instead), for reviewing PRs from git history, or when no model is specified by the user.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Independent review loop run before delivery in code work. An independent reviewer (Codex, or fresh Codex-style subagents) reads the whole PR against the approved outcome; the lead fixes in-scope functional findings and re-reviews until none remain. Its differentiator is independence and exhaustiveness — a reviewer that fails differently from the authors, run to clean — distinct from the recursive-refinement ladder. Invoked by the team lead from the unified pre-ship gate (code-mode and /swarm:refine) after the ship steps.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Drive a GitHub Copilot (or any bot reviewer) pull-request review to a clean pass without babysitting it: fix each finding in its own commit, reply to the review thread with the fix sha, resolve the thread, re-request the bot, and poll for the async re-review. Covers the thread node-id (PRRT_...) vs comment databaseId distinction, the resolveReviewThread GraphQL mutation, the copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot] slug, and how to read the bot's verdict (COMMENTED plus a "human review recommended" banner is not a blocking finding). Use when Copilot has left review comments on your PR, when bot review threads must be closed out with an auditable fix-reply-resolve trail before merge, or when you need to verify that a re-review actually landed on the new HEAD rather than the old one.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Review and resolve PR review comments on the current branch's PR in this Flutter repository, from both AI reviewers (CodeRabbit, CodiumAI, CodePilot, Copilot, etc.) and human reviewers. Fetches comments via `gh`, splits them into AI and human groups, verifies each comment against the actual Flutter code, triages them, proposes fixes, and optionally applies fixes, replies to comments, and pushes. Use when the user asks to review PR comments, resolve PR feedback, review AI comments, review human review comments, or handle code review feedback.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, insecure deserialization), code smells, N+1 queries, naming issues, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code quality audits, identifying refactoring opportunities, or checking for security issues. Invoke for PR reviews, code quality checks, refactoring suggestions, review code, code quality. Complements specialized skills (security-reviewer, test-master) by providing broad-scope review across correctness, performance, maintainability, and test coverage in a single pass.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Run an adversarial two-phase code review of a change with TWO independent reviewers — Claude and Codex — who review alone, then cross-examine each other's findings, then Claude synthesizes a single weighted verdict. Use when the user says "/adversarial-review", "adversarial review", "review this with Codex", "get Codex to review", "two-reviewer review", "cross-examine this PR", or wants a second independent model to grade a change before merge.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Perform a code review on {{engine_name}} {{engine_code_language}} code. Checks for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and best practices against the project's coding rules, design principles, and framework-specific conventions. Supports four modes — staged changes, a pull request, a commit range, or individual files. Use when the user says "review code", "check my code", "code review", "review PR", "review staged changes", "review these commits", or "is this code okay". Optional +check flag validates findings via a fresh-context subagent.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Claude Code (code.claude.com) デプロイ・CI/CD リファレンス。 Amazon Bedrock / Google Cloud Agent Platform (Vertex AI) / Microsoft Foundry / Claude Platform on AWS、 Claude apps gateway、LLM gateway (protocol / rollout)、 GitHub Actions (claude-code-action) / GitLab CI/CD / GitHub Enterprise Server (GHES)、 Code Review (REVIEW.md・review level・@claude review always・コスト・トラブルシュート)、 ローカル /code-review、ultrareview (claude ultrareview)、 Slack (Claude Tag、旧 Claude Code in Slack、Pro/Max)、 headless mode、cloud environments、devcontainer、 self-hosted environments（runner 構成・identity 検証・本番デプロイ）。
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Requests a code review from a separate agent after implementation or before merging. It provides the change summary, requirements, and commit range, then guides follow-up work according to the severity of the findings.
Create an SVG usage card from local Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, and OpenCode logs. It summarizes token counts, equivalent API cost, consecutive activity days, and each agent's share for inclusion in a README or documentation.
Create CodeTour files that guide readers through a codebase step by step, with verified file and line references. Tailor the walkthrough to new contributors, architecture readers, PR reviewers, or investigators tracing a failure or security boundary.
Guides delegation of coding tasks to Claude Code CLI through Hermes. Covers one-shot runs and ongoing interactive sessions for feature work, bug fixes, refactoring, and reviews, with controls for tool permissions, execution limits, and structured results.
Delegate feature development, code refactoring, and pull request reviews to OpenAI Codex CLI. The skill also covers monitoring long tasks and fixing multiple issues in parallel using separate Git working directories.