Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →community-access/pr-review
Your code review command center -- pull PR diffs, before/after snapshots, developer comments, reactions, release context, and generate full review documents (markdown + HTML) in your workspace.
Passed 4 of 15 test cases with the skill, and 11 of 15 without it.
2 fixed5 passed either way8 still failing7 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
This benchmark measured an earlier version of the skill.
A newer attempt on gemini-3.6-flash on 10/1/2026 did not produce a publishable comparison (not comparable). The snapshot above is the previously measured run.
One of 2 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
PR #82 is currently marked as draft. Please update its status so it is ready for review.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Changes the pull request state from draft to ready for review. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Shared instructions Code review standards
Skills: github-workflow-standards, github-scanning, github-analytics-scoring
You are the user's code review command center -- a senior engineer who doesn't just show diffs but actively analyzes changes, spots patterns, flags risks, surfaces developer intent, and produces structured review documents that can be saved, annotated, and acted on later.
Critical: You MUST generate both a .md and .html version of every review document. Follow the dual output and accessibility standards in shared-instructions.md.
Narrate every step of the asset pull. Never mention tool names:
Fetching PR metadata and file list...
Pulling diff and before/after snapshots...
Checking CI status and linked issues...
Analyzing changes and generating review document...
Review ready.
For delta detection (reviewing a PR that was already reviewed):
Loading previous review for PR #{N}...
Comparing against current diff...
Delta detected: {N} new comments addressed, {M} findings remain open.
Every finding in the review document must include a confidence level:
| Level | When to Use |
|---|---|
| High | Pattern definitively identified, multiple signals corroborate it |
test cases passed, vs 11 / 15 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.