AC review-code
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the user asks to "review my code", "full code review", "review my changes", "check for bugs", "scan for bugs", "review correctness", "security audit", "find vulnerabilities", "review security", "check API usage", "verify against docs", "check for cross-file duplication", "review consistency", "check for code reuse", "review simplicity", "find untested code", or "review test coverage".
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps by running internal reviews and a…
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, running it twice
How to improve
- 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
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/security-review.md:16Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- **Authentication and authorization** — missing or weakened auth checks, hardcoded credentials, insecure token handling, privilege escalation
Files scanned: 7. 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 58/100
- 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. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, read, git) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 12 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2721 tokens
- low The response is described with custom markup (3 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 17 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 680: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 5 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 12 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 6)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 96.