A registry of agent skills with test results.

Review a pull request in an isolated worktree, post comments on the PR, and clean up

Use when asked to review a pull request, diff, or branch changes. Provides a methodical review checklist covering correctness, security, and maintainability.

Use when conducting comprehensive code review for pull requests across multiple quality dimensions. Orchestrates 12-15 specialized reviewer agents across 4 phases using star topology coordination. Covers automated checks, parallel specialized reviews (quality, security, performance, architecture, documentation), integration analysis, and final merge recommendation in a 4-hour workflow.

Pull request workflow and review expertise. Auto-invokes when PRs, code review, merge, or pull request operations are mentioned. Integrates with self-improvement plugin for quality validation.

Creates pull requests with generated descriptions. Triggered when: PR creation, pull request, merge request, code review preparation.

Guidance for creating pull requests and handling PR review comments in the Agent Framework repository. Use this when writing a PR description (filling out the PR template) or when responding to and resolving review comments on an existing PR.

Five-axis code review checklist (correctness, security, readability, performance, test coverage) producing actionable comments instead of style nitpicks. Use when the user asks to review code, a diff, or a pull request.

Five-axis code review checklist (correctness, security, readability, performance, test coverage) producing actionable comments instead of style nitpicks. Use when the user asks to review code, a diff, or a pull request.

Provides comprehensive code review capability for Next.js applications, validates Server Components, Client Components, Server Actions, caching strategies, metadata, API routes, middleware, and performance patterns. Use when reviewing Next.js App Router code changes, before merging pull requests, after implementing new features, or for architecture validation. Triggers on "review Next.js code", "Next.js code review", "check my Next.js app".

Review pull requests in this repository. Use when reviewing changes to Markdown rendering, the marked configuration, renderers, knowledge/** content, or the CI and git-hook gates. Encodes the failure modes that have actually shipped here — most importantly the ones where the test suite was green while the reader-facing page was still broken.

Review a pull request or diff like a thoughtful senior engineer — prioritized, kind, and focused on what matters. Use when reviewing code, giving PR feedback, or asked to 'review this change'. Produces a structured review: a correctness/design pass, comments ranked by severity (blocking → nit), what's done well, and a clear approve / request-changes call — feedback that improves the code and the author.

Review Clojure and ClojureScript code changes for compliance with Metabase coding standards, style violations, and code quality issues. Use when reviewing pull requests or diffs containing Clojure/ClojureScript code.

Review a pull request for correctness, design and readability, naming the severity of each comment so the author knows what blocks the merge.

This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.

Review a code change for concrete correctness, security, data-integrity, compatibility, concurrency, and operability regressions by reconstructing intent and checking affected invariants and boundary paths. Use for local diffs, commits, branches, patches, or pull requests when the user wants actionable review findings. Report only defects introduced or exposed by the change with precise evidence; do not modify code unless asked to address findings.

Runs a Trailmark structural review gate over a branch, pull request, fix commit, release diff, or git ref range to detect new entrypoints, new tainted paths, removed validation or authorization calls, privilege-boundary drift, blast-radius growth, complexity growth, and newly reachable sensitive sinks. Use when reviewing a PR, branch, remediation commit, or release diff where graph-level security regressions should be checked before merge.

Review documentation changes for compliance with the Metabase writing style guide. Use when reviewing pull requests, files, or diffs containing documentation markdown files.

Assess an openai-agents-python GitHub issue or pull request as a maintainer. Use to verify the claimed need and practical impact, compare supported alternatives or competing approaches, separate code quality from repository readiness, recommend the maintainer action, and draft a copy-ready comment when evidence, changes, or closure should be requested.

Run a final code review on a pull request

Review code changes for correctness defects, regressions, security risks, data-integrity problems, concurrency hazards, and missing meaningful tests. Use for pull requests, branches, commits, patches, or working-tree reviews; do not use for implementation unless the user separately requests fixes.