Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索权限需确认github未标认证来源可访问clear审计未展示

laravel_code-review-requestsLaravel 代码审查 requests

Agent Skill

laravel_code-review-requests 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

941

周安装

40

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

330
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

MIT

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:laravel_code-review-requests(Laravel 代码审查 requests)
来源仓库:https://github.com/jpcaparas/superpowers-laravel
仓库路径:skills/laravel_code-review-requests
安装命令:
npx skills add jpcaparas/superpowers-laravel --skill "laravel:code-review-requests"
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。

AgentSkills.tonpx skills
npx skills add jpcaparas/superpowers-laravel --skill "laravel:code-review-requests"

简介

Laravel 代码审查 requests 工具,用于发起或分析 Pull Request 质量。

  • 适合在 AI 宿主中提升代码可读性、安全性与团队协作效率。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令安装,实际行为以来源仓库定义为准。
  • 使用前应确认 Git 工作流与 CI/CD 配置,避免干扰正常合并流程。
  • laravel_code-review-requests 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Code Review Requests

Focused review requests get actionable feedback. Vague requests get generic advice.

Specify Focus Areas

Vague

"Review this code"

Focused

"Review OrderService for security and performance:

Focus on:

  • Authorization checks (are we verifying user owns the order?)
  • SQL injection risks (any raw queries?)
  • N+1 query problems (eager loading correct?)
  • Transaction handling (atomic operations?)
  • Error handling (graceful failures?)

Code:

class OrderService
{
    public function createOrder(User $user, array $items): Order
    {
        $order = Order::create(['user_id' => $user->id]);

        foreach ($items as $item) {
            OrderItem::create([
                'order_id' => $order->id,
                'product_id' => $item['product_id'],
                'quantity' => $item['quantity'],
            ]);
        }

        return $order;
    }
}

Why it works: Clear focus areas guide the review toward specific concerns.

Provide Context

Insufficient Context

"Is this controller okay?"

Sufficient Context

"Review ProductController for our API:

Context:

  • Public API used by mobile app and web frontend
  • Handles 10k requests/day, needs to scale to 100k
  • Products have categories (belongsTo) and reviews (hasMany)
  • Using Laravel 11.x with Sanctum authentication
  • Following repository pattern (ProductRepository exists)

Concerns:

  • Is the response format consistent with our other API endpoints?
  • Are we handling errors appropriately?
  • Should we add rate limiting?

Code:

class ProductController extends Controller
{
    public function index(Request $request)
    {
        $products = Product::with('category')
            ->paginate(20);

        return ProductResource::collection($products);
    }
}

Why it works: Context about usage, scale, patterns, and specific concerns.

Architectural Feedback

Unclear

"Is the architecture good?"

Clear

"Review the architecture of our payment processing:

Current design:


PaymentController → PaymentService → StripeGateway (direct Stripe API calls) → PaymentRepository (database)

Concerns:

  1. PaymentService is tightly coupled to Stripe. What if we add PayPal?
  2. No retry logic for failed payments
  3. Webhook handling is in a separate controller, feels disconnected
  4. No audit trail of payment attempts

Questions:

  • Should we use a PaymentGatewayInterface for multiple providers?
  • Where should retry logic live? Service or job?
  • How to structure webhook handling?
  • Best way to add audit logging?

Current code: [attach PaymentService.php]"

Why it works: Explains current design, identifies concerns, asks specific questions.

Laravel-Specific Review

Generic

"Check if this follows best practices"

Laravel-Specific

"Review for Laravel conventions and best practices:

Code:

class UserController extends Controller
{
    public function store(Request $request)
    {
        $validated = $request->validate([
            'email' => 'required|email|unique:users',
            'password' => 'required|min:8',
        ]);

        $user = new User();
        $user->email = $validated['email'];
        $user->password = Hash::make($validated['password']);
        $user->save();

        return response()->json($user, 201);
    }
}

Check for:

  • Should validation be in a Form Request?
  • Is mass assignment safer than manual assignment?
  • Should we use a Resource for the response?
  • Is password hashing handled correctly?
  • Should user creation be in a service/action?
  • Any missing authorization checks?
  • Following Laravel 11.x conventions?"

Why it works: Asks about specific Laravel patterns and conventions.

Specify Experience Level

Unclear Depth

"Review my code"

Clear Depth

"Review this authentication implementation:

My experience: Junior developer, 6 months with Laravel

What I need:

  • Explain any security issues in detail (I'm still learning auth best practices)
  • Point out Laravel conventions I'm missing
  • Suggest improvements with examples
  • If something is wrong, explain why and show the correct approach

Code:

public function login(Request $request)
{
    $user = User::where('email', $request->email)->first();

    if ($user && Hash::check($request->password, $user->password)) {
        $token = $user->createToken('auth')->plainTextToken;
        return response()->json(['token' => $token]);
    }

    return response()->json(['error' => 'Invalid credentials'], 401);
}

Questions:

  • Is this secure enough for production?
  • What am I missing?
  • How would a senior developer write this?"

Why it works: Sets expectations for depth and style of feedback.

Review Request Templates

Template: Security Review

**Focus:** Security vulnerabilities and best practices
**Code:** [attach code]
**Context:** [authentication method, data sensitivity, user roles]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] SQL injection risks
- [ ] XSS vulnerabilities
- [ ] Authorization checks
- [ ] Data validation
- [ ] Sensitive data exposure

Template: Performance Review

**Focus:** Performance and scalability
**Code:** [attach code]
**Current metrics:** [response times, query counts]
**Expected load:** [requests/day, concurrent users]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] N+1 queries
- [ ] Missing indexes
- [ ] Inefficient algorithms
- [ ] Caching opportunities
- [ ] Memory usage

Template: Architecture Review

**Focus:** Design patterns and maintainability
**Code:** [attach code]
**Current architecture:** [describe structure]
**Team size:** [number of developers]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] Separation of concerns
- [ ] Testability
- [ ] Coupling between components
- [ ] Code duplication
- [ ] Complexity

Template: Laravel Conventions

**Focus:** Laravel best practices and conventions
**Code:** [attach code]
**Laravel version:** [11.x or 12.x]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] Following framework conventions
- [ ] Using appropriate Laravel features
- [ ] Eloquent relationships correct
- [ ] Validation approach
- [ ] Resource/response formatting

Quick Reference

Request effective reviews:

  • Specify focus - Security, performance, architecture, conventions
  • Provide context - Purpose, scale, patterns, constraints
  • Ask specific questions - Don't just ask "is this good?"
  • Reference Laravel - Ask about framework-specific patterns
  • Set depth - Junior needs explanations, senior needs quick feedback

Focused requests = actionable feedback.

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

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

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

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

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

Claude Code

26.62%
按下载量换算88

Antigravity

25.69%
按下载量换算85

windsurf

18.65%
按下载量换算62

OpenCode

11.97%
按下载量换算40

Gemini CLI

8.58%
按下载量换算28

Codex

3.43%
按下载量换算11

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

权限需确认

当前来源未能明确判断权限范围,默认进入异常复核队列。

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