Review a specified code change without editing files. Checks the full diff, surrounding code, tests, and callers to identify actionable defects introduced by the change, then reports findings by severity with file and line references.
Perform a read-only, defect-first review of a specified code change and return every actionable finding. Use when another agent delegates review of uncommitted changes, a base-branch diff, a commit, or custom review instructions.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Inspect the requested target directly and return every finding that the author would likely fix. Do not modify files, create commits, push branches, post review comments, or delegate the review to another agent.
AGENTS.md instructions.For a base-branch review, compare the changes that would actually merge rather than diffing
directly against the branch tip. Resolve the comparison ref to the branch's upstream when that
upstream exists and is ahead of the local branch; otherwise use the local branch. Run
git merge-base HEAD <comparison-ref>, then inspect git diff <merge-base-sha>. If the local
branch cannot be resolved, try its configured upstream explicitly before reporting that the target
is unavailable.
Flag an issue only when all of these are true:
Do not flag speculative concerns, pre-existing problems, intentional behavior changes, or style nits that do not obscure the code.
Present findings first, ordered by severity. Use one entry per issue in this form:
[P1] Imperative finding title — path/to/file.rs:line
Follow the title with one short paragraph explaining the affected scenario and why the behavior is wrong. Keep the cited range as small as possible and make sure it overlaps the reviewed diff.
Use these priorities:
P0: universal release blocker or critical failure.P1: urgent defect that should be fixed next.P2: ordinary defect that should be fixed.P3: low-impact issue that is still worth fixing.If there are no qualifying findings, say No findings. Do not invent a finding to fill the result.
After the findings, add a brief overall assessment and mention any material test gaps or residual
risks.
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 new interfaces or reshape existing screens with colors, typography, layouts, and motion grounded in the subject. The skill guides planning, critique, and implementation to create a distinctive visual identity with clear interface text.
Build MCP servers, which let AI agents use external APIs and services through tools. The skill guides tool design, authentication, input validation, implementation, testing, and evaluation using TypeScript or Python.
Review Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, and Go code for security issues using guidance for the project's languages and frameworks. Get prioritized findings, suggested improvements, or help writing new code with safer defaults.
Analyze git history to map contributors to security-sensitive files, identify reliance on too few people, and find stale areas. Export CSV and JSON results for ownership reviews, graph exploration, and comparison with CODEOWNERS.
Analyze a codebase to identify valuable assets, attack entry points, and realistic abuse paths. Produce a concise Markdown threat model that explains risk priorities, distinguishes existing protections from proposed mitigations, and makes assumptions explicit.
Create or update Codex skills that package specialized knowledge, repeatable workflows, and tool instructions. The guide covers concrete use cases, folder structure, reusable resources, starter generation, and basic validation of names and required metadata.