SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BF code-review-excellence-hardened

Provides comprehensive code review guidance for React 19, Vue 3, Rust, TypeScript, Java, Python, and C/C++. Helps catch bugs, improve code quality, and give constructive feedback. Use when: reviewing pull requests, conducting PR reviews, code review, reviewing code changes, establishing review standards, mentoring developers, architecture reviews, security audits, checking code quality, finding bugs, giving feedback on code.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Faberlens v1.0.0 MIT-0 3 files body ≈ 1 916 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 3 d ago

As a process F 28/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: reference/architecture-review-guide.md, reference/performance-review-guide.md, reference/security-review-guide.md

AnalyzerSoftware developmenttype 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
B
86/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
95
Quality 40%
72
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
F
28/100
Will not run
References files that are not bundled: reference/architecture-review-guide.md, reference/performance-review-guide.md, reference/security-review-guide.md
Tools and files w 18
0
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

What is at stake

Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.

Broad scope medium severity

Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.

If you install

The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.

For the author

Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.

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 · 1

✓ No critical or high findings

Medium and low: 1
  • medium Broad scope meta-broad-allowed-tools SKILL.md:1
    Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bash
    allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob Bash WebFetch

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: reference/architecture-review-guide.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/performance-review-guide.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/security-review-guide.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/react.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/vue.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/rust.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/typescript.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/python.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/java.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/go.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/c.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/cpp.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/css-less-sass.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/qt.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/common-bugs-checklist.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: reference/code-review-best-practices.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: assets/pr-review-template.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: assets/review-checklist.md

Process rating: all ten parameters 28/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: reference/architecture-review-guide.md, reference/performance-review-guide.md, reference/security-review-guide.md
  • 0Tools and files. 18 referenced file(s) missing: reference/architecture-review-guide.md, reference/performance-review-guide.md, reference/security-review-guide.md
  • 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
  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
  • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (code-review-excellence-hardened) differs from the folder (code-review-hardened)
  • 100Steps. 76 steps
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1916 tokens
  • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing

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 428: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 19 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 76 items
  • +4Has examples (3 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.

External checks

ClawHub: clean
This is an instruction-only code review skill with disclosed review tools and explicit safety guardrails against sending code out or making destructive changes.
LLM: benign (high) · VirusTotal: benign · 27 May 2026