SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AD code-reviewer

Automated code review, quality gates, and PR analysis. Integrates with GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket. Enforce style guides, detect bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues. Auto-approve safe PRs, flag dangerous changes. Save developers 5+ hours/week on manual reviews.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Fuhaolin v1.0.0 MIT-0 2 files body ≈ 2 602 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 2 d ago

As a process D 42/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

AnalyzerGitHubGitLabSoftware developmentInfrastructureSecuritytype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: OpenClaw 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) Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
92/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
81
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
D
42/100
Unfinished process
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
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: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "homepage"

    Process rating: all ten parameters 42/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (code-reviewer) differs from the folder (clawd-code-reviewer)
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 100Steps. 41 steps
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2602 tokens
    • low 14 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill

    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
    • -221 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 274: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 29 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 41 items
    • +4Has examples (15 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    This code-review skill is on-purpose, but it can approve or block pull requests and send PR details to Slack without enough scoping or safety guidance.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026