SKILLEMALL.ai

AF gitcode-pr-comment-workflow

GitCode PR review comment response workflow. Accepts a PR link, fetches review comments from the PR, checks out the PR's source branch locally, proposes modification plans based on review feedback, applies changes after user confirmation, and commits/pushes back to the source branch. Triggers on phrases like "根据 review 修改 PR", "处理 PR 审查意见", "fix PR review comments", "PR review workflow", "按检视意见修改", "review comment workflow". Requires gitcode CLI and git. NOT for creating new PRs (use gitcode-issue-workflow) or initiating code reviews (use code-review skill).

ClawHub Agent Skills author: hummel mao v1.0.2 MIT-0 3 files body ≈ 4 645 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 32 h ago

GitCode PR review comment response workflow.

As a process F 63/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: [module]

ProcedureSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
86
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
F
63/100
Will not run
References files that are not bundled: [module]
Tools and files w 18
0
Running it twice w 4
30
Result and completion w 14
40
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
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: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: [module]

Process rating: all ten parameters 63/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: [module]
  • 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: [module]
  • 30Running it twice. 13 mutating operations with no state check
  • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
  • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4645 tokens
  • 85Steps. 73 steps, 1 vague phrases
  • 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
  • 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
  • low The response is described with custom markup (32 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

  • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
  • -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +5Description quotes 6 example trigger phrases
  • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
  • +3Description length 564: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 15 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 73 items
  • +4Has examples (34 code blocks)
  • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.

External checks

ClawHub: suspicious
The skill is coherent for GitCode PR review work, but it uses sensitive GitCode tokens in URL-based API calls while also allowing persistent PR changes and comments.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 30 May 2026