review — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited review (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.
Run a comprehensive code review on current branch changes.
"$ARGUMENTS"
If provided, the above gives optional extra constraints or focus areas for the review. By default, the skill reviews all current branch changes without needing any arguments.
Use a subagent to carry out the review.
IMPORTANT: This agent is a reviewer only - do NOT modify any code. Report issues for the fix agent to handle.
Before starting the review, the subagent should:
plan-*.md in the current directory to understand the feature intent, expected changes, and architecture decisions.Then proceed with the full review workflow:
#### Step 1: Identify Changed Files
Check what files have been modified:
git status
git diff --name-onlyParse the output to get list of modified Python files.
#### Step 2: Deep Code Review
Review each modified file for:
Security Concerns:
Code Quality:
Integration Issues:
Edge Cases:
For each issue found, provide:
#### Step 3: Generate Review Report
Create review.md with the following structure:
# Code Review Report
**Date**: [Current date]
**Branch**: [Branch name]
**Reviewer**: Code Review Agent
## Summary
[High-level summary of changes and overall assessment]
**Overall Status**: APPROVED / CHANGES REQUESTED / REJECTED
## Code Review Findings
### BLOCKING Issues
[Critical issues - these MUST be fixed]
### High Priority
[Security concerns, major quality issues]
### Medium Priority
[Code quality improvements, refactoring suggestions]
### Low Priority / Suggestions
[Nice-to-have improvements, style suggestions]
## Test Results
[Test run summary and any failures]
## Files Reviewed
[List of all files checked with brief notes]
Write the report to `review.md` in the current directory.
After the review subagent writes review.md and before the fix subagent runs, get a second opinion from Codex:
/codex skill on the current branch diff (per its PR diff review recipe). Ask it to find things the primary review missed — bugs, security issues, design smells, untested paths, missed edge cases.review.md under the appropriate severity sections, tagged as (Codex) so the fix subagent picks them up in the same pass.After the review and Codex critique are merged into review.md, use another subagent (opus high effort) to fix all issues:
review.md in the current directory~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.