Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计异常

ai-review-validatorAI 评论验证器

Agent Skill

ai-review-validator 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

190

周安装

8

GitHub Stars

3

下载量

67
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ai-review-validator(AI 评论验证器)
来源仓库:https://github.com/mkdir700/myskills
仓库路径:skills/ai-review-validator
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/mkdir700/myskills --skill ai-review-validator
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/mkdir700/myskills --skill ai-review-validator

简介

用于验证 AI 代码审查建议的技术正确性。

  • 通过文档核对、编译测试与置信度评分决策。
  • 自动应用高置信度修改并记录溯源信息。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。
  • 必须保留原始评论 URL 于提交消息中备查。
  • ai-review-validator 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Ai Review Validator

Overview

Automate validation and execution of AI Review suggestions. This skill verifies AI-generated code review comments by checking official documentation, analyzing the codebase, testing compilation, and calculating confidence scores before automatically applying verified changes.

⚠️ CRITICAL REQUIREMENT

EVERY commit that applies an AI Review suggestion MUST include the original comment URL in the commit message.

This is NON-NEGOTIABLE. The commit message format MUST be:

git commit -m "fix: <summary>

Apply AI Review suggestion
Verified with confidence: <score>/100

AI-Review: <original_github_url>
Resolves: <original_github_url>"

Without this link, the commit loses all traceability. This is one of the primary purposes of this skill - maintaining the connection between code changes and AI Review suggestions.

Workflow

Step 0: Fetch GitHub PR Comment (if URL provided)

If user provides a GitHub PR comment URL, convert it to API format and fetch content:

URL Conversion Examples:

Input:  https://github.com/UniClipboard/UniClipboard/pull/158#discussion_r2734386595
Output: https://api.github.com/repos/UniClipboard/UniClipboard/pulls/comments/2734386595

Input:  https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123#issuecomment-456789
Output: https://api.github.com/repos/owner/repo/issues/comments/456789

Implementation:

# Use the included script to convert URL
api_url=$(python3 scripts/github_url_converter.py "<user_provided_url>")

# Fetch comment content from GitHub API
web_fetch "$api_url"

# API response structure:
# {
#   "body": "⚠️ MouseEvent removed...",  # AI Review comment text
#   "path": "src/window.rs",              # Affected file
#   "diff_hunk": "@@ -10,7 +10,7...",   # Code context
#   "user": {"login": "github-copilot"}, # AI tool identifier
#   "html_url": "...",                    # Original URL for commit reference
#   "created_at": "2024-01-28T..."
# }

Supported URL formats:

  • PR review comments: #discussion_r{comment_id}/pulls/comments/{comment_id}
  • Issue/PR comments: #issuecomment-{comment_id}/issues/comments/{comment_id}
  • Already API URLs: Pass through unchanged

Extract key information from API response:

# Parse the fetched comment
comment_data = {
    "body": response["body"],           # Full AI Review text
    "affected_file": response["path"],  # File to modify
    "original_url": response["html_url"], # For commit reference
    "diff_context": response.get("diff_hunk", "")  # Code context
}

Step 1: Parse AI Review Comment

Extract structured information from the comment (either from fetched API response or user-pasted content):

# Expected AI Review format:
# 1. Risk warning/description
# 2. Code example (before/after)
# 3. Modification prompt

comment_structure = {
    "risk_warning": str,      # e.g., "MouseEvent removed in Tauri v2"
    "deprecated_api": str,    # e.g., "MouseEvent.position()"
    "suggested_api": str,     # e.g., "LogicalPosition::new(x, y)"
    "code_examples": {
        "before": str,
        "after": str
    },
    "modification_prompt": str,  # Instructions for applying the change
    "affected_files": [str],
    "comment_url": str        # CRITICAL: Save this for commit message!
}

IMPORTANT: The comment_url field MUST be preserved throughout the entire workflow. This URL will be used in the commit message to link the code change back to the AI Review suggestion. Never lose track of this URL.

Step 2: Multi-Dimensional Verification

Run verification in parallel, scoring each dimension:

2.1 Official Documentation (Weight: 40%)

# Search official sources
web_search "<framework> <deprecated_api> deprecated removed"
web_search "<framework> <suggested_api> migration guide"
web_fetch "official migration documentation URL"

# Scoring:
# - Explicit confirmation: 40 points
# - Partial confirmation: 20 points
# - No evidence: 0 points

2.2 Codebase Analysis (Weight: 20%)

# Examine project state
view <affected_file>
bash_tool "grep -rn '<deprecated_api>' ."
bash_tool "cat package.json | grep <framework>"  # Check version

# Scoring:
# - API found + version matches: 20 points
# - API found but version unclear: 10 points
# - API not found: 0 points

2.3 Experimental Verification (Weight: 30%)

# Test the suggested change
create_file "/home/claude/test_change.ext" "<test code with new API>"
bash_tool "<compile command>"  # e.g., rustc, tsc, npm build

# Scoring:
# - Compiles + no type errors: 30 points
# - Compiles with warnings: 15 points
# - Fails: 0 points

2.4 Test Suite (Weight: 10%)

bash_tool "<test command>"  # e.g., cargo test, npm test

# Scoring:
# - All tests pass: 10 points
# - Tests fail: 0 points

Step 3: Calculate Confidence & Decide

confidence_score = (
    docs_score +
    codebase_score +
    experimental_score +
    test_score
)

if confidence_score >= 80:
    decision = "AUTO_APPLY"
elif confidence_score >= 60:
    decision = "APPLY_WITH_REVIEW"
elif confidence_score >= 40:
    decision = "MANUAL_REVIEW"
else:
    decision = "REJECT"

Step 4: Execute Based on Confidence

Before proceeding, review references/commit-checklist.md to ensure all required fields are included in the commit message.

AUTO_APPLY (≥80)

# Apply changes
str_replace(
    path=<file>,
    old_str=<deprecated_code>,
    new_str=<new_code>,
    description="Apply AI Review suggestion"
)

# Verify
bash_tool "<build_command>"
bash_tool "<test_command>"

# CRITICAL: Commit MUST include AI Review URL reference
# This is NON-NEGOTIABLE - the commit message MUST link to the original AI Review
bash_tool 'git add .'
bash_tool 'git commit -m "fix: <summary>

Apply AI Review suggestion
Verified with confidence: <score>/100

Verification:
- Docs: <status>
- Compilation: <status>
- Tests: <status>

AI-Review: <original_comment_url>
Resolves: <original_comment_url>
Co-authored-by: AI Review Validator <agent@ai-review.dev>"'

MANDATORY Commit Message Format:

The commit message MUST include the original AI Review comment URL. This is essential for:

  1. Traceability - linking code changes to the suggestion source
  2. Accountability - showing what was verified
  3. Context - future developers can see why the change was made

Bad commit (NEVER do this):

git commit -m "fix: sync pairing settings types and test env"

❌ Missing AI Review URL reference!

Good commit (ALWAYS do this):

git commit -m "fix: Replace MouseEvent with LogicalPosition

Apply AI Review suggestion
Verified with confidence: 85/100

AI-Review: https://github.com/user/repo/pull/123#discussion_r456
Resolves: https://github.com/user/repo/pull/123#discussion_r456"

✅ Includes AI Review URL - properly traceable!

Report format:

✅ AI Review Suggestion Verified and Applied

Confidence Score: <score>/100

Verification Summary:
- ✓ Official Docs: <evidence>
- ✓ Compilation: Passes
- ✓ Tests: All passing

Changes: <file> (<n> replacements)
Commit: <hash>
Linked: <comment_url>

APPLY_WITH_REVIEW (60-79)

Apply changes but flag potential issues:

# Apply changes
str_replace(...)

# Verify
bash_tool "<build_command>"
bash_tool "<test_command>"

# Commit with AI Review URL (MANDATORY)
bash_tool 'git commit -m "fix: <summary>

Apply AI Review suggestion with review needed
Verified with confidence: <score>/100

⚠️ Please review:
- <concern 1>
- <concern 2>

AI-Review: <original_comment_url>
Resolves: <original_comment_url>"'

Report format:

⚠️ AI Review Suggestion Applied - Please Review

Confidence Score: <score>/100

Concerns:
- <specific issue to check>

Changes applied but recommend reviewing:
1. <area of concern>
2. <edge case>

Commit: <hash>
AI Review: <original_url>

MANUAL_REVIEW (40-59)

🔍 AI Review Suggestion Requires Manual Review

Confidence Score: <score>/100

Issues:
- <conflicting information>
- <uncertainty>

Recommendation: Do not auto-apply

REJECT (<40)

❌ AI Review Suggestion Not Verified

Confidence Score: <score>/100

Evidence shows this suggestion may be incorrect:
- <contradicting evidence>

Recommendation: Do NOT apply

Edge Cases

Multiple Files

Process all files, create single atomic commit:

for file in affected_files:
    str_replace(...)

# MUST include AI Review URL
bash_tool 'git commit -m "fix: <summary>

Apply AI Review suggestion
Verified with confidence: <score>/100

Modified files:
- <file1>
- <file2>

AI-Review: <original_comment_url>
Resolves: <original_comment_url>"'

Conflicting Information

if docs_result != experimental_result:
    return "MANUAL_REVIEW", {
        "reason": "Conflicting evidence",
        "docs": docs_result,
        "experiments": experimental_result
    }

Breaking Changes

# If tests fail after applying
bash_tool "git reset --hard HEAD"
return "REJECT", "Tests fail after applying suggestion"

Safety Principles

  1. Never blindly trust AI Review - Always verify before applying
  2. Provide evidence - Show docs, compilation output, test results
  3. Be transparent - Explain confidence scoring
  4. Safety first - Verify builds/tests before committing
  5. MANDATORY: Link to AI Review in commit - Every commit MUST include the original AI Review comment URL in the commit message. Use both AI-Review: and Resolves: fields.
  6. Human-in-loop - Flag uncertain cases for review

Critical Commit Message Requirement:

EVERY commit that applies an AI Review suggestion MUST include:

AI-Review: <original_github_url>
Resolves: <original_github_url>

This is NON-NEGOTIABLE. Without this link, the commit loses all traceability to the AI Review that prompted it.

Common Patterns

Pattern 1: API Deprecation

⚠️ API deprecated in v2.0
Old: old_api()
New: new_api()

Pattern 2: Security Risk

🔒 Security: Avoid unsafe code
Use: Safe alternative

Pattern 3: Performance

⚡ Performance: Can be optimized
Use: Iterator instead of collect()

When to Escalate

Escalate to human review when:

  • Confidence < 60
  • Breaking changes detected
  • Tests fail after applying
  • Conflicting information from sources
  • Security-critical code
  • Architectural changes

Scripts

This skill includes a helper script for GitHub integration:

scripts/github_url_converter.py

Converts GitHub PR comment URLs to GitHub API URLs for fetching comment content.

Usage:

python3 scripts/github_url_converter.py "https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123#discussion_r456"
# Output: https://api.github.com/repos/owner/repo/pulls/comments/456

Supported formats:

  • PR review comments: #discussion_r{id}
  • Issue/PR comments: #issuecomment-{id}

The script handles URL conversion automatically so you can fetch AI Review content directly from GitHub's API.

Detailed Examples

For comprehensive examples of different scenarios, see references/examples.md:

  • GitHub URL with API fetching (complete workflow)
  • Pasted comment content (manual input)
  • Medium confidence with warnings (performance optimization)
  • Low confidence rejection (false positive detection)
  • Multiple file batch processing
  • Conflicting information handling

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

37.36%
按下载量换算25

Claude

30.55%
按下载量换算20

Cursor

18.9%
按下载量换算13

Gemini CLI

10.68%
按下载量换算7

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

未通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills