SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC critical-code-reviewer

Conduct rigorous, adversarial code reviews with zero tolerance for mediocrity. Use when users ask to "critically review" my code or a PR, "critique my code", "find issues in my code", or "what's wrong with this code". Identifies security holes, lazy patterns, edge case failures, and bad practices across Python, R, JavaScript/TypeScript, SQL, and front-end code. Scrutinizes error handling, type safety, performance, accessibility, and code quality. Provides structured feedback with severity tiers (Blocking, Required, Suggestions) and specific, actionable recommendations.

modbender/skill-library-mcp Agent Skills author: modbender MIT 1 file body ≈ 2 072 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Conduct rigorous, adversarial code reviews with zero tolerance for mediocrity.

As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

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
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
87
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
57/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
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: 1. 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

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
    • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 100Steps. 73 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2072 tokens

    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

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 575: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 14 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 73 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.