Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

ai-review-validator(AI 评论验证器)

ai-review-validator 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

ai-review-validator 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有未通过项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 72,083。

总安装 190周安装 8GitHub Stars 3下载 67核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ai-review-validator(AI 评论验证器)
来源仓库:https://github.com/mkdir700/myskills
仓库路径:skills/ai-review-validator
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/mkdir700/myskills --skill ai-review-validator
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/mkdir700/myskills --skill ai-review-validator

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于验证 AI 代码审查建议的技术正确性。通过文档核对、编译测试与置信度评分决策。自动应用高置信度修改并记录溯源信息。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。必须保留原始评论 URL 于提交消息中备查。

ai-review-validator 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/ai-review-validator

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/mkdir700/myskills --skill ai-review-validator;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

ai-review-validator 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/mkdir700/myskills --skill ai-review-validator。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

ai-review-validator 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

ai-review-validator 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

ai-review-validator 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

ai-review-validator 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 190 次,近一周安装 8 次,下载 67 次,GitHub 3 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

ai-review-validator 安全吗?

第三方扫描有未通过项,风险较高。除非你确认过源码,否则不建议直接安装到常用环境。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
ai-review-validator

AI 评论验证器 · 本页

1903需要联网未明确未通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Ai Review Validator

Overview

Automate validation and execution of AI Review suggestions. This skill verifies AI-generated code review comments by checking official documentation, analyzing the codebase, testing compilation, and calculating confidence scores before automatically applying verified changes.

⚠️ CRITICAL REQUIREMENT

EVERY commit that applies an AI Review suggestion MUST include the original comment URL in the commit message.

This is NON-NEGOTIABLE. The commit message format MUST be:

git commit -m "fix: <summary>

Apply AI Review suggestion
Verified with confidence: <score>/100

AI-Review: <original_github_url>
Resolves: <original_github_url>"

Without this link, the commit loses all traceability. This is one of the primary purposes of this skill - maintaining the connection between code changes and AI Review suggestions.

Workflow

Step 0: Fetch GitHub PR Comment (if URL provided)

If user provides a GitHub PR comment URL, convert it to API format and fetch content:

URL Conversion Examples:

Input:  https://github.com/UniClipboard/UniClipboard/pull/158#discussion_r2734386595
Output: https://api.github.com/repos/UniClipboard/UniClipboard/pulls/comments/2734386595

Input:  https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123#issuecomment-456789
Output: https://api.github.com/repos/owner/repo/issues/comments/456789

Implementation:

# Use the included script to convert URL
api_url=$(python3 scripts/github_url_converter.py "<user_provided_url>")

# Fetch comment content from GitHub API
web_fetch "$api_url"

# API response structure:
# {
#   "body": "⚠️ MouseEvent removed...",  # AI Review comment text
#   "path": "src/window.rs",              # Affected file
#   "diff_hunk": "@@ -10,7 +10,7...",   # Code context
#   "user": {"login": "github-copilot"}, # AI tool identifier
#   "html_url": "...",                    # Original URL for commit reference
#   "created_at": "2024-01-28T..."
# }

Supported URL formats:

  • PR review comments: #discussion_r{comment_id} → /pulls/comments/{comment_id}
  • Issue/PR comments: #issuecomment-{comment_id} → /issues/comments/{comment_id}
  • Already API URLs: Pass through unchanged

Extract key information from API response:

# Parse the fetched comment
comment_data = {
    "body": response["body"],           # Full AI Review text
    "affected_file": response["path"],  # File to modify
    "original_url": response["html_url"], # For commit reference
    "diff_context": response.get("diff_hunk", "")  # Code context
}

Step 1: Parse AI Review Comment

Extract structured information from the comment (either from fetched API response or user-pasted content):

# Expected AI Review format:
# 1. Risk warning/description
# 2. Code example (before/after)
# 3. Modification prompt

comment_structure = {
    "risk_warning": str,      # e.g., "MouseEvent removed in Tauri v2"
    "deprecated_api": str,    # e.g., "MouseEvent.position()"
    "suggested_api": str,     # e.g., "LogicalPosition::new(x, y)"
    "code_examples": {
        "before": str,
        "after": str
    },
    "modification_prompt": str,  # Instructions for applying the change
    "affected_files": [str],
    "comment_url": str        # CRITICAL: Save this for commit message!
}

IMPORTANT: The comment_url field MUST be preserved throughout the entire workflow. This URL will be used in the commit message to link the code change back to the AI Review suggestion. Never lose track of this URL.

Step 2: Multi-Dimensional Verification

Run verification in parallel, scoring each dimension:

2.1 Official Documentation (Weight: 40%)
# Search official sources
web_search "<framework> <deprecated_api> deprecated removed"
web_search "<framework> <suggested_api> migration guide"
web_fetch "official migration documentation URL"

# Scoring:
# - Explicit confirmation: 40 points
# - Partial confirmation: 20 points
# - No evidence: 0 points
2.2 Codebase Analysis (Weight: 20%)
# Examine project state
view <affected_file>
bash_tool "grep -rn '<deprecated_api>' ."
bash_tool "cat package.json | grep <framework>"  # Check version

# Scoring:
# - API found + version matches: 20 points
# - API found but version unclear: 10 points
# - API not found: 0 points
2.3 Experimental Verification (Weight: 30%)
# Test the suggested change
create_file "/home/claude/test_change.ext" "<test code with new API>"
bash_tool "<compile command>"  # e.g., rustc, tsc, npm build

# Scoring:
# - Compiles + no type errors: 30 points
# - Compiles with warnings: 15 points
# - Fails: 0 points
2.4 Test Suite (Weight: 10%)
bash_tool "<test command>"  # e.g., cargo test, npm test

# Scoring:
# - All tests pass: 10 points
# - Tests fail: 0 points

Step 3: Calculate Confidence & Decide

confidence_score = (
    docs_score +
    codebase_score +
    experimental_score +
    test_score
)

if confidence_score >= 80:
    decision = "AUTO_APPLY"
elif confidence_score >= 60:
    decision = "APPLY_WITH_REVIEW"
elif confidence_score >= 40:
    decision = "MANUAL_REVIEW"
else:
    decision = "REJECT"

Step 4: Execute Based on Confidence

Before proceeding, review references/commit-checklist.md to ensure all required fields are included in the commit message.

AUTO_APPLY (≥80)
# Apply changes
str_replace(
    path=<file>,
    old_str=<deprecated_code>,
    new_str=<new_code>,
    description="Apply AI Review suggestion"
)

# Verify
bash_tool "<build_command>"
bash_tool "<test_command>"

# CRITICAL: Commit MUST include AI Review URL reference
# This is NON-NEGOTIABLE - the commit message MUST link to the original AI Review
bash_tool 'git add .'
bash_tool 'git commit -m "fix: <summary>

Apply AI Review suggestion
Verified with confidence: <score>/100

Verification:
- Docs: <status>
- Compilation: <status>
- Tests: <status>

AI-Review: <original_comment_url>
Resolves: <original_comment_url>
Co-authored-by: AI Review Validator <agent@ai-review.dev>"'

MANDATORY Commit Message Format:

The commit message MUST include the original AI Review comment URL. This is essential for:

  1. Traceability - linking code changes to the suggestion source
  2. Accountability - showing what was verified
  3. Context - future developers can see why the change was made

Bad commit (NEVER do this):

git commit -m "fix: sync pairing settings types and test env"

❌ Missing AI Review URL reference!

Good commit (ALWAYS do this):

git commit -m "fix: Replace MouseEvent with LogicalPosition

Apply AI Review suggestion
Verified with confidence: 85/100

AI-Review: https://github.com/user/repo/pull/123#discussion_r456
Resolves: https://github.com/user/repo/pull/123#discussion_r456"

✅ Includes AI Review URL - properly traceable!

Report format:

✅ AI Review Suggestion Verified and Applied

Confidence Score: <score>/100

Verification Summary:
- ✓ Official Docs: <evidence>
- ✓ Compilation: Passes
- ✓ Tests: All passing

Changes: <file> (<n> replacements)
Commit: <hash>
Linked: <comment_url>
APPLY_WITH_REVIEW (60-79)

Apply changes but flag potential issues:

# Apply changes
str_replace(...)

# Verify
bash_tool "<build_command>"
bash_tool "<test_command>"

# Commit with AI Review URL (MANDATORY)
bash_tool 'git commit -m "fix: <summary>

Apply AI Review suggestion with review needed
Verified with confidence: <score>/100

⚠️ Please review:
- <concern 1>
- <concern 2>

AI-Review: <original_comment_url>
Resolves: <original_comment_url>"'

Report format:

⚠️ AI Review Suggestion Applied - Please Review

Confidence Score: <score>/100

Concerns:
- <specific issue to check>

Changes applied but recommend reviewing:
1. <area of concern>
2. <edge case>

Commit: <hash>
AI Review: <original_url>
MANUAL_REVIEW (40-59)
🔍 AI Review Suggestion Requires Manual Review

Confidence Score: <score>/100

Issues:
- <conflicting information>
- <uncertainty>

Recommendation: Do not auto-apply
REJECT (<40)
❌ AI Review Suggestion Not Verified

Confidence Score: <score>/100

Evidence shows this suggestion may be incorrect:
- <contradicting evidence>

Recommendation: Do NOT apply

Edge Cases

Multiple Files

Process all files, create single atomic commit:

for file in affected_files:
    str_replace(...)

# MUST include AI Review URL
bash_tool 'git commit -m "fix: <summary>

Apply AI Review suggestion
Verified with confidence: <score>/100

Modified files:
- <file1>
- <file2>

AI-Review: <original_comment_url>
Resolves: <original_comment_url>"'

Conflicting Information

if docs_result != experimental_result:
    return "MANUAL_REVIEW", {
        "reason": "Conflicting evidence",
        "docs": docs_result,
        "experiments": experimental_result
    }

Breaking Changes

# If tests fail after applying
bash_tool "git reset --hard HEAD"
return "REJECT", "Tests fail after applying suggestion"

Safety Principles

  1. Never blindly trust AI Review - Always verify before applying
  2. Provide evidence - Show docs, compilation output, test results
  3. Be transparent - Explain confidence scoring
  4. Safety first - Verify builds/tests before committing
  5. MANDATORY: Link to AI Review in commit - Every commit MUST include the original AI Review comment URL in the commit message. Use both AI-Review: and Resolves: fields.
  6. Human-in-loop - Flag uncertain cases for review

Critical Commit Message Requirement:

EVERY commit that applies an AI Review suggestion MUST include:

AI-Review: <original_github_url>
Resolves: <original_github_url>

This is NON-NEGOTIABLE. Without this link, the commit loses all traceability to the AI Review that prompted it.

Common Patterns

Pattern 1: API Deprecation

⚠️ API deprecated in v2.0
Old: old_api()
New: new_api()

Pattern 2: Security Risk

🔒 Security: Avoid unsafe code
Use: Safe alternative

Pattern 3: Performance

⚡ Performance: Can be optimized
Use: Iterator instead of collect()

When to Escalate

Escalate to human review when:

  • Confidence < 60
  • Breaking changes detected
  • Tests fail after applying
  • Conflicting information from sources
  • Security-critical code
  • Architectural changes

Scripts

This skill includes a helper script for GitHub integration:

scripts/github_url_converter.py

Converts GitHub PR comment URLs to GitHub API URLs for fetching comment content.

Usage:

python3 scripts/github_url_converter.py "https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123#discussion_r456"
# Output: https://api.github.com/repos/owner/repo/pulls/comments/456

Supported formats:

  • PR review comments: #discussion_r{id}
  • Issue/PR comments: #issuecomment-{id}

The script handles URL conversion automatically so you can fetch AI Review content directly from GitHub's API.

Detailed Examples

For comprehensive examples of different scenarios, see references/examples.md:

  • GitHub URL with API fetching (complete workflow)
  • Pasted comment content (manual input)
  • Medium confidence with warnings (performance optimization)
  • Low confidence rejection (false positive detection)
  • Multiple file batch processing
  • Conflicting information handling

平台分布

Codex

37.36%
按下载量换算25

Claude

30.55%
按下载量换算20

Cursor

18.9%
按下载量换算13

Gemini CLI

10.68%
按下载量换算7

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

未通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills