SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC gh-pr-review

Automated Cherry Studio review for local branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, and repository skills. Use for code or documentation reviews that need project-specific naming, main/renderer/shared placement and dependency rules, IpcApi and DataApi boundaries, lifecycle/service ownership, renderer hooks, React/UI conventions, and tests. Review depth adapts to diff size and runtime subagent capability (single-agent or multi-agent reviewer-verifier). Report-only by default; code fixes and GitHub submission each require explicit invocation-time authorization (`fix` / `submit`). Normal-review prompts and safe interruption behavior follow the interaction contract below. To diagnose gaps in the skill after a review session, run `/gh-pr-review diag`.

CherryHQ/cherry-studio Agent Skills author: CherryHQ 12 files body ≈ 3 714 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 5 h ago

Automated Cherry Studio review for local branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, and repository skills.

As a process C 61/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

AnalyzerGitHubSoftware developmentAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
88
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
61/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
When it triggers w 12
20
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 12. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 61/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 100Steps. 29 steps
    • 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3714 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
    • low The response is described with custom markup (3 tags): a typed call is more reliable

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 763: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 10 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 29 items
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (10 of 10)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.