AC propel-code-review
Run async diff-based code reviews using the Propel Review API, poll for completion, retrieve structured findings, and send comment feedback. Use when reviewing the current branch diff or any Git diff with Propel.
As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Exfiltration
net-credential-usescripts/create_review.sh:130Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)printf 'header = "Authorization: Bearer %s"\n' "$PROPEL_API_KEY" >"$CURL_CONFIG_FILE"
quoted -
low Exfiltration
net-credential-usescripts/poll_review.sh:154Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)printf 'header = "Authorization: Bearer %s"\n' "$PROPEL_API_KEY" >"$CURL_CONFIG_FILE"
quoted -
low Exfiltration
net-credential-usescripts/post_comment_feedback.sh:120Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)printf 'header = "Authorization: Bearer %s"\n' "$PROPEL_API_KEY" >"$CURL_CONFIG_FILE"
quoted
Files scanned: 6. 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 57/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (propel-code-review) differs from the folder (propel-code-review-smoke-1773429953)
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 56 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 4 branches, has a failure section
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2634 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- 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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 212: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 56 items
- +4Has examples (13 code blocks)
- +3All 4 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.
External checks
ClawHub: suspicious
The skill is a real Propel code-review integration, but it gives the agent enough authority to persist an API token, upload diffs, edit code, and post feedback without clear per-run confirmation.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026