Review a GitHub issue by checking its claims against a selected code revision, looking for duplicate reports and prior fixes, and assessing completeness and severity. The skill produces a triage report and draft reply; posting comments or labels is optional.
Review a GitHub issue the way /code-review reviews a PR. Fetches the issue with the gh CLI, checks the report against the current codebase, searches for duplicates and prior fixes, scores completeness, assigns severity, and writes a triage report plus a draft reply. Posting comments or labels is opt-in only. Use when the user asks to check, triage, validate, or review a GitHub issue.
Run score Not tested
See how to installThis skill fetches a GitHub issue and compares the report with code from the relevant revision and the project’s reporting requirements. It classifies the issue and checks whether it includes reproduction steps, expected and actual behavior, version, and environment details. It also looks for possible duplicates and previous fixes, distinguishing a shared root cause from whether a fix is present in the target revision. The result is a triage report with evidence, related issues, suggested labels, severity, confidence, and a draft reply.
Use it before replying to a new bug report when you want to check whether the report is supported by the code or whether an existing fix applies. It can also help maintainers assess missing information, duplicates, and severity with supporting evidence. It is for GitHub issues, not pull request reviews.
Fetching issues requires an authenticated gh CLI. Comments and labels are applied only when explicitly requested. Running code requires a separately authorized trusted environment; if that environment cannot be verified, runtime behavior is treated as unverified.
This overview was written by AI (OpenAI Codex) from the public SKILL.md. Check the original below for the exact behavior.
AI checked the SKILL.md for operations that need care and for setup requirements. The score comes only from actually running the skill (hands-on test).
Not counted in the score. Rated by AI (OpenAI Codex) as of Oct 30, 2026. Treat it as a guide and read the original before installing.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.
Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.
Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.
Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.
Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.
Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.