code-review-checklist-8f3f26 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited code-review-checklist-8f3f26 (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Produces a tailored code review checklist for a specific pull request — scaled to the language, type of change, and risk level. Not a generic template.
Not quite this? Use code-review-guide when you want to carry out the review itself with senior judgement, not just a checklist.Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).
git diff; significantly improves checklist specificity)Scope assessment: [Small / Medium / Large / Too large — should be split] Recommended review depth: [Skim / Standard / Deep dive] Estimated review time: [e.g. 20–30 min — use 5 min per 50 lines of diff as a rough guide]
Language-specific correctness checks — choose based on the language stated:
For TypeScript/JavaScript:
any in non-test codeFor Python:
For Go:
[Include only the section matching the stated language]
For bug fixes:
For features:
For refactors:
For dependency upgrades:
[Include only the section matching the stated change type]
Low risk: basic correctness, style conventions, test coverage Medium risk: above + rollback plan, monitoring updates, performance considerations High risk: above + security implications, data migration safety, feature flag/gradual rollout Critical risk: above + staging validation plan, incident response plan, post-deploy verification checklist
Approve if: [2-3 specific conditions based on this PR] Request changes if: [Specific blockers] Comment (non-blocking) if: [Items worth discussing but not blocking merge]
Based on the change type and language, flag 2-3 things reviewers typically miss for this combination.
This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available:
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Language specificity | Checks could apply to any language — a swapped-in language name would change nothing | Correct language block chosen, but checks restate the template rather than this PR's constructs | Every correctness check names a construct actually in the diff (goroutines, promise chains, context managers) |
| Risk-depth calibration | Same depth regardless of stated risk level | Depth roughly scales, but high-risk extras (rollback plan, staged rollout, monitoring) are missing or token | Depth matches the stated risk exactly and the review-time estimate follows the diff size guide |
| Decision-framework sharpness | "Approve if it looks good" — no named conditions | Blockers listed but untestable; a reviewer can't tell when they're satisfied | Every approve/block/comment condition is checkable against a specific test, flag, metric, or artifact |
| Pitfall specificity | Pitfalls absent or generic ("watch for bugs") | Pitfalls match the language or the change type, but not the combination | 2–3 pitfalls that only make sense for this exact language + change-type combination |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.