본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

pr-improver

Runs repeated PR reviews and fixes on the directories changed by the current branch. Uses an installed reviewer, checks editing scope after each round, and reports whether blocking findings were resolved or the loop stopped.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Runs an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over the current branch's changes until a PR review comes back clean, scoped mechanically to the directories the branch touched. Reviews are performed by an installed PR-review skill (default: pr-review-toolkit's review-pr). Use to fix review findings on a branch before opening or updating a pull request ('clean up this branch', 'fix this PR until review passes', 'run review-and-fix on my changes'). NOT for a one-time review — run the PR-review skill directly.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Cleaning up a branch before opening a pull request
  • Fixing review findings before updating a pull request
  • Repeating reviews after each fix
  • Tracking unresolved findings when improvement stops

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md7.4 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

PR Improver

Improve the current branch by running /code-improver:improve — a dynamic workflow that loops a PR reviewer and a fixer subagent over the branch's changes until a review reports zero critical/major findings. The loop, its ledger, and its guards live in the workflow; this skill derives the scope from the branch diff and relays the outcome.

Starting the loop

The user provided: $ARGUMENTS (if empty, take base branch and preferences from the conversation).

1. Resolve the branch and its change surface

  1. Repo root: git rev-parse --show-toplevel. Fail loudly outside a repository.
  2. Base: the argument if given, else the repository's default branch (git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD → its short name, falling back to main). Refuse to run when the current branch IS the base — there is no diff to improve.
  3. Changed files: git diff --name-only <base>...HEAD. If empty, say so and stop.
  4. Scope: the changed files' directories, widened — per-file globs are too tight (PR fixes legitimately add tests next to changed code). Map each changed file to its repo-relative directory glob <dir>/** (** at the repo root only if files at the root changed), then deduplicate and drop globs covered by another.

2. Resolve the loop script

The loop is the dynamic workflow workflows/improve.js in this plugin. Launch it by path: scriptPath takes a resolved absolute path, and the Workflow tool's name resolves built-in and project workflows, so a marketplace-installed one may not answer to code-improver:improve. Try in order, first hit wins — the home directories come before . so an installed copy beats a checkout of this marketplace:

  1. Bash: ls -d -- "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/improve.js"
  2. Bash: ls -d -- "${CODEX_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/improve.js" (if that variable is set instead)
  3. Bash: find ~/.claude ~/.codex . -maxdepth 7 -path '*/code-improver/workflows/improve.js' -print -quit 2>/dev/null

Use the path exactly as printed. Its plugin directory — the path with /workflows/improve.js removed — is pluginRoot. If all three come back empty, try {name: "code-improver:improve"} once; if that is unavailable too, stop and say the loop could not be located. Do not assemble a path by hand and do not improvise the loop.

3. Invoke the workflow

Run it with the Workflow tool, {scriptPath: "<the path from step 2>", args: {...}}:

{
  "target": "<repo root>",
  "reviewer": {
    "kind": "skill",
    "name": "pr-review-toolkit:review-pr",
    "notes": "Review the working tree's changes against <base> as a pull request: correctness, tests, error handling, and the review dimensions the skill prescribes."
  },
  "scope": ["<derived-dir-glob>/**"],
  "pluginRoot": "<the plugin directory from step 2>",
  "maxRounds": 5
}
  • reviewer — the default above requires the pr-review-toolkit plugin. When the user names a different PR reviewer (skill or agent), use it, with kind set accordingly.
  • maxRounds only if the user asked for a different cap.
  • pluginRoot lets the run find its metrics collector; omit the key only if step 2 fell through to the workflow name — the workflow then searches for itself.
  • finalize defaults are right for PRs: no version bump unless the branch sits inside a plugin, narration strip and docs pass on.
  • decision only on continuation (below).

The loop's baseline snapshot is the tree at loop start — its scope guard protects the branch's uncommitted work; the PR's own commits are what the reviewer reviews.

The workflow runs in the background and needs no babysitting: it reviews, fixes, re-reviews, checks scope after every fix round, and can only complete on a clean review. It never commits; all changes stay in the working tree.

If the Workflow tool is unavailable or denied, stop and say so. Do not improvise the loop inline with direct edits — the ledger, scope guard, and escalation guarantees live in the workflow, and an inline imitation has none of them.

If the result is halted: "reviewer-unavailable", relay it and stop. The reviewer is not installed in this session; tell the user which plugin provides it (the default needs pr-review-toolkit) and re-run after installing. Do not review the branch yourself.

Do not end your turn while the loop is running. The Workflow tool returns a task id immediately; the result comes later. In an interactive session the completion notification re-invokes you — wait for it. In a non-interactive run (scripted, CI, eval) there is no later turn: stopping abandons the loop mid-round, so after launching, poll the task (TaskOutput with the returned task id, or sleep-and-recheck) until it completes, then relay the result. A session that answers "the loop is running, I'll report later" has lost the run.

Relaying the result

The workflow returns a structured result. Report it honestly — the distinctions matter:

  • converged: true — the last action was a review with zero critical/major findings. Report rounds used, remaining minor findings (open_minor_count), and the artifact paths (ledger_path, metrics).
  • capped: true — the fix budget ran out and the FINAL review still found blocking issues. Say plainly: capped, NOT converged, and list open_blocking. Do not present this as success.
  • escalation — the loop detected it was not converging (recurring findings, non-decreasing counts, or a fix relocating a problem). Relay the escalation message and finding ids to the user: this needs a design decision, not more rounds.
  • halted — a guard fired (scope violation, unregistered new files, a dead or unavailable reviewer, or a finalize pass whose own edits failed the check that follows it). Relay the paths in violations/new_untracked_files, the sites in finalize_regressions, and the notes.
  • notes always travel with the result — surface them; they include loud warnings such as "a git repository was initialized".

Continuing after an escalation

The loop stops on escalation by design. When the user decides, start a fresh run with the same args plus:

{ "decision": "<the user's ruling, verbatim>" }

The new run reloads the on-disk ledger, so every finding, rejection, and verdict carries over — rounds restart, re-derivation does not.

To stop a running loop, stop the workflow task (TaskStop); the ledger on disk is current to the last round and a re-run resumes from it.

When NOT to use

  • One-time review: run the PR-review skill directly; the loop's value is iteration
  • A skill: use the skill-improver entry — it wires the right reviewer
  • Unpushed exploratory work: review-and-fix loops harden a diff; while the shape is fluid, manual iteration gives more control

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Build and test code with AddressSanitizer, a tool that detects invalid memory access during execution. Configure checks for C/C++ and unsafe Rust, investigate crash reports, and adjust settings for fuzzing, or testing with generated inputs.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Detect memory errors while fuzzing C/C++
  • Test unsafe Rust and calls to external libraries
  • Interpret an ASan crash report
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

aflpp

무료

Sets up AFL++ to test C/C++ programs with varied generated inputs, a technique called fuzzing. Covers running tests across CPU cores, monitoring progress, reducing input collections, and reproducing crashes for investigation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Running C/C++ fuzzing across multiple CPU cores
  • Exploring further after libFuzzer progress stalls
  • Monitoring fuzzing progress and stability
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

Audits GitHub Actions workflows that run AI coding agents. Traces how attacker-controlled content reaches prompts, checks permissions and sandbox settings, and reports evidence, severity, and fixes for prompt injection and related configuration risks.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Reviewing workflows that run AI coding agents
  • Tracing issue and PR content into agent prompts
  • Checking sandbox settings and user allowlists
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

Reviews Algorand smart contracts written in TEAL or PyTeal for 11 vulnerability patterns. Produces a complete coverage table and findings with code references, severity ratings, and suggested fixes, with optional automated checks using Tealer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Security checks before an Algorand contract audit
  • Reviewing TEAL or PyTeal transaction validation
  • Verifying fixes for reported vulnerabilities
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

atheris

무료

Set up Atheris to test Python code and C extensions with automatically varied inputs. It guides test harness creation, coverage tracking to explore more code, and AddressSanitizer setup for finding memory errors.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Fuzzing a Python package or parser
  • Investigating memory corruption in Python C extensions
  • Turning raw bytes into typed test arguments
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

Connect static analysis results and human audit notes to a Trailmark code graph. Group findings by severity and compare them with input flow, impact, and privilege boundaries to prioritize investigation and understand findings in their code context.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Connecting Semgrep or CodeQL results to code structure
  • Combining human audit notes with automated findings
  • Prioritizing findings using input flow and impact
trailofbits/skills7.6천2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

trailofbits의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고