Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
前端设计需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

review审查

Agent Skill

review 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。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

470

周安装

19

GitHub Stars

10,530

下载量

147
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:review(审查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/elie222/inbox-zero
仓库路径:skills/review
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/elie222/inbox-zero --skill review
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/elie222/inbox-zero --skill review

简介

review 用于代码审查与质量检查,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中对 PR 变更进行自动化初步筛查与人工复核时使用。

  • 它能自动修复明显问题、发现逻辑错误与安全漏洞,但关键修改需等待用户确认后再执行。
  • 使用时应分类处理 bug、fix、refactor 等类型,优先关注数据丢失、竞态条件与边界情况。
  • 安装前需确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写操作。
  • review 属于前端设计类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

review

Code review with craftsman's eye. Auto-fix obvious issues, surface real bugs.

Reference @AGENTS.md for project conventions. Apply those patterns as review criteria.

Critical Rules

  1. AUTO-FIX safe obvious issues - Don't ask permission for no-brainers
  2. HUNT FOR BUGS - Logic errors, edge cases, race conditions first
  3. WAIT for confirmation - On BUG/FIX, don't execute until user says "go"
  4. BE CONCISE - One-line items, choices at END
  5. USE clickable links - path/to/file.ts:123 format only

Categories

CategoryWhatAction
[BUG]Logic errors, security, data loss, race conditionsReport → wait
[FIX]Type gaps, missing error handling, test gaps, slopReport → wait
[AUTO]Unused imports, dead code, console.log, typosFix immediately
[CONSIDER]Refactors, style opinions, nice-to-haveMention only

AUTO Criteria (all must be true)

  • Zero risk of breaking behavior
  • <5 seconds to fix
  • No judgment call needed

AUTO examples:

  • Unused imports/variables
  • Trailing whitespace
  • Console.log (unless intentional)
  • Dead/unreachable code
  • Obvious typos in comments/strings

NOT AUTO (needs confirmation):

  • Removing "unused" function (might be used elsewhere)
  • Type changes (might change behavior)
  • Any logic change
  • AI slop removal (might be intentional)

Project-Specific Checks

Always ask these questions during review:

Can this be simpler?

  • Is there unnecessary abstraction? Could this be done with less code?
  • Are there helpers/utils being created for one-time operations?
  • Over-engineered error handling, feature flags, or backwards-compat shims?
  • Unnecessary wrapper components or HOCs?

Can we remove any code?

  • Dead code, unused exports, commented-out blocks?
  • Re-exports or barrel files (we don't use barrel files)?
  • Backwards-compatibility hacks like renamed _vars or // removed comments?
  • Types/interfaces exported but only used in the same file?

Is it DRY without premature abstraction?

  • Obvious copy-paste of entire functions or large blocks → refactor
  • But 2-3 similar lines are fine — don't abstract too early
  • The wrong abstraction is worse than duplication

Is it structured correctly?

  • Colocate page-specific components next to their page (not in a nested components/ subfolder — we don't do that in route directories)
  • General/reusable components go in apps/web/components/
  • API routes: One resource per route, not combined data endpoints
  • Server actions for mutations, not POST routes
  • Validation schemas in separate .validation.ts files
  • Helper functions at the bottom of files, not the top
  • All imports at the top — no mid-file dynamic imports
  • No barrel files (index.ts re-exporting everything from a folder)

Does it follow project patterns? (see @AGENTS.md)

  • GET routes wrapped with withAuth or withEmailAccount?
  • Response types exported as Awaited<ReturnType<typeof fn>>?
  • SWR for client-side data fetching?
  • LoadingContent for loading/error states?
  • useAction from next-safe-action/hooks for form submissions?
  • Zod schemas with z.infer<typeof schema> instead of duplicate interfaces?
  • Self-documenting code? Comments explain "why" not "what"?
  • logger.trace() for PII fields?
  • Test changes follow .claude/skills/testing/SKILL.md?
  • Tests avoid mocking @/utils/logger?
  • If draft-generation prompt, retrieval, routing, or post-processing changed, was apps/web/utils/ai/reply/draft-attribution.ts DRAFT_PIPELINE_VERSION bumped for analytics?

Learnings check

  • Did this change teach us something that should be captured in AGENTS.md or this review file?
  • Are there patterns that keep coming up that we should document?

Mindset

Inheritance Test: Would I curse the previous author? Understand at 2am?

Pride Test: Would I put my name on this?

Workflow

Step 0: Determine Scope & Group Files

Auto-detect: conversation changes → staged → current diff

git diff --cached --name-only  # or HEAD

Group files by area/dependency:

Batch 1: apps/web/app/api/agent/* (3 files)
Batch 2: apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/agent/* (related components)
Batch 3: apps/web/utils/actions/* (2 files)

Output: Found X files in Y batches

──────────

Step 1: Create Review Plan (TODO)

BEFORE reading any file content, create todo list:

- [ ] Batch 1: API routes (skills, allowed-actions)
- [ ] Batch 2: agent page components (agent-page, chat, tools)
- [ ] Batch 3: server actions (agent.ts, agent.validation.ts)

Use todo_write to track batches.

──────────

Step 2: Process Each Batch

For each batch:

  1. Read diff for batch files only (git diff --cached -- path/to/files)
  2. Review & categorize issues
  3. Auto-fix [AUTO] items immediately
  4. Note [BUG]/[FIX]/[CONSIDER] items
  5. Mark batch complete in todos

Issue format:

1. **[BUG]** Race condition in concurrent saves — `src/db.ts:45`
2. **[FIX]** Missing error boundary — `src/App.tsx:12`
3. **[CONSIDER]** Extract to custom hook — `src/Form.tsx:34`

After each batch:

Batch 1 done: AUTO: 2 fixed | BUG: 1 | FIX: 2

──────────

Step 3: Summary & Options (After All Batches)

Total: BUG: X | FIX: X | CONSIDER: X (auto-fixed: Y)

Issues:
1. [BUG] ... — `path:line`
2. [FIX] ... — `path:line`

What to fix?
- a) BUG + FIX [recommended]
- b) BUG only
- c) All including CONSIDER
- d) Custom (e.g., "1,3")

I'll assume a) if you don't specify.

Learnings:
- Any patterns worth adding to AGENTS.md?
- Any new review checks to add to this file?

STOP. Wait for selection.

──────────

Step 4: Execute Fixes

Process fixes batch-by-batch (same grouping):

  1. Update todo list with selected fixes
  2. For each batch:

- Read relevant file(s) - Apply fixes - Mark complete

  1. Run linter if applicable

Severity Guide

BUG (Logic/Security):

  • Business logic errors, wrong conditions
  • Race conditions, data loss
  • Security: injection, XSS, exposed secrets
  • API routes missing auth middleware
  • Null/undefined not handled
  • Edge cases that break

FIX (Quality):

  • Type safety gaps, unsafe casts
  • Missing error handling
  • Test coverage gaps
  • AI slop (WHAT comments, unnecessary try/catch, as any)
  • Missing validation
  • Combined API routes that should be separate
  • POST routes used for mutations instead of server actions
  • Barrel files / re-export patterns

CONSIDER (Opinions):

  • Refactoring opportunities
  • "I would do it differently"
  • Performance micro-optimizations
  • Style preferences

Git Commands

# Staged
git diff --cached
git diff --cached --name-only

# All uncommitted
git diff HEAD
git diff HEAD --name-only

Error Handling

ErrorResponse
No changes"Check git status or specify files"
File not foundList available, ask to specify
Binary filesSkip, mention in summary
Large file (>10k)"Review specific sections?"

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

34.36%
按下载量换算51

Claude

32.87%
按下载量换算48

Cursor

20.35%
按下载量换算30

Gemini CLI

9.87%
按下载量换算15

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

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。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