Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 前端设计

review(审查)

review 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。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。

review 是前端设计类 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,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在前端设计类的 10,216 个 Skill 里排第 6,674。

总安装 470周安装 19GitHub Stars 10,530下载 147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:review(审查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/elie222/inbox-zero
仓库路径:skills/review
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/elie222/inbox-zero --skill review
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/elie222/inbox-zero --skill review

这个 Skill 是做什么的

前端设计类 Skill 关注页面结构、视觉规范和组件写法,输出通常是可运行的界面代码。

review 用于代码审查与质量检查,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中对 PR 变更进行自动化初步筛查与人工复核时使用。它能自动修复明显问题、发现逻辑错误与安全漏洞,但关键修改需等待用户确认后再执行。

使用时应分类处理 bug、fix、refactor 等类型,优先关注数据丢失、竞态条件与边界情况。安装前需确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写操作。review 属于前端设计类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/review

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/elie222/inbox-zero --skill review;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

review 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/elie222/inbox-zero --skill review。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

review 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。

review 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。

review 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。

review 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 470 次,近一周安装 19 次,下载 147 次,GitHub 10,530 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。

review 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

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。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 来源仓库有 10,530 星,维护活跃度相对可查。

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。
  • 需要处理前端设计类任务、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。

前端设计类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
frontend-design

前端设计 · Codex、Claude

8,823,360126,072只读MIT通过
vercel-composition-patterns

Vercel 组合模式 · Codex、Claude

3,858,81625,893需要联网MIT通过
vercel-react-native-skills

Vercel React native skills 前端 · Codex、Claude

2,468,66425,878只读MIT通过
adapt

adapt 搜索 · Codex、Claude

2,027,04023,125操作浏览器未明确通过
bolder

bolder 分析 · Codex、Claude

2,004,28823,130只读未明确通过
review

审查 · 本页

47010,530需要联网未明确通过

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

review

Code review with craftsman's eye. Auto-fix obvious issues, surface real bugs.

Reference @AGENTS.md for project conventions. Apply those patterns as review criteria.

Critical Rules

  1. AUTO-FIX safe obvious issues - Don't ask permission for no-brainers
  2. HUNT FOR BUGS - Logic errors, edge cases, race conditions first
  3. WAIT for confirmation - On BUG/FIX, don't execute until user says "go"
  4. BE CONCISE - One-line items, choices at END
  5. USE clickable links - path/to/file.ts:123 format only

Categories

CategoryWhatAction
[BUG]Logic errors, security, data loss, race conditionsReport → wait
[FIX]Type gaps, missing error handling, test gaps, slopReport → wait
[AUTO]Unused imports, dead code, console.log, typosFix immediately
[CONSIDER]Refactors, style opinions, nice-to-haveMention only

AUTO Criteria (all must be true)

  • Zero risk of breaking behavior
  • <5 seconds to fix
  • No judgment call needed

AUTO examples:

  • Unused imports/variables
  • Trailing whitespace
  • Console.log (unless intentional)
  • Dead/unreachable code
  • Obvious typos in comments/strings

NOT AUTO (needs confirmation):

  • Removing "unused" function (might be used elsewhere)
  • Type changes (might change behavior)
  • Any logic change
  • AI slop removal (might be intentional)

Project-Specific Checks

Always ask these questions during review:

Can this be simpler?

  • Is there unnecessary abstraction? Could this be done with less code?
  • Are there helpers/utils being created for one-time operations?
  • Over-engineered error handling, feature flags, or backwards-compat shims?
  • Unnecessary wrapper components or HOCs?

Can we remove any code?

  • Dead code, unused exports, commented-out blocks?
  • Re-exports or barrel files (we don't use barrel files)?
  • Backwards-compatibility hacks like renamed _vars or // removed comments?
  • Types/interfaces exported but only used in the same file?

Is it DRY without premature abstraction?

  • Obvious copy-paste of entire functions or large blocks → refactor
  • But 2-3 similar lines are fine — don't abstract too early
  • The wrong abstraction is worse than duplication

Is it structured correctly?

  • Colocate page-specific components next to their page (not in a nested components/ subfolder — we don't do that in route directories)
  • General/reusable components go in apps/web/components/
  • API routes: One resource per route, not combined data endpoints
  • Server actions for mutations, not POST routes
  • Validation schemas in separate .validation.ts files
  • Helper functions at the bottom of files, not the top
  • All imports at the top — no mid-file dynamic imports
  • No barrel files (index.ts re-exporting everything from a folder)

Does it follow project patterns? (see @AGENTS.md)

  • GET routes wrapped with withAuth or withEmailAccount?
  • Response types exported as Awaited<ReturnType<typeof fn>>?
  • SWR for client-side data fetching?
  • LoadingContent for loading/error states?
  • useAction from next-safe-action/hooks for form submissions?
  • Zod schemas with z.infer<typeof schema> instead of duplicate interfaces?
  • Self-documenting code? Comments explain "why" not "what"?
  • logger.trace() for PII fields?
  • Test changes follow .claude/skills/testing/SKILL.md?
  • Tests avoid mocking @/utils/logger?
  • If draft-generation prompt, retrieval, routing, or post-processing changed, was apps/web/utils/ai/reply/draft-attribution.ts DRAFT_PIPELINE_VERSION bumped for analytics?

Learnings check

  • Did this change teach us something that should be captured in AGENTS.md or this review file?
  • Are there patterns that keep coming up that we should document?

Mindset

Inheritance Test: Would I curse the previous author? Understand at 2am?

Pride Test: Would I put my name on this?

Workflow

Step 0: Determine Scope & Group Files

Auto-detect: conversation changes → staged → current diff

git diff --cached --name-only  # or HEAD

Group files by area/dependency:

Batch 1: apps/web/app/api/agent/* (3 files)
Batch 2: apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/agent/* (related components)
Batch 3: apps/web/utils/actions/* (2 files)

Output: Found X files in Y batches

──────────

Step 1: Create Review Plan (TODO)

BEFORE reading any file content, create todo list:

- [ ] Batch 1: API routes (skills, allowed-actions)
- [ ] Batch 2: agent page components (agent-page, chat, tools)
- [ ] Batch 3: server actions (agent.ts, agent.validation.ts)

Use todo_write to track batches.

──────────

Step 2: Process Each Batch

For each batch:

  1. Read diff for batch files only (git diff --cached -- path/to/files)
  2. Review & categorize issues
  3. Auto-fix [AUTO] items immediately
  4. Note [BUG]/[FIX]/[CONSIDER] items
  5. Mark batch complete in todos

Issue format:

1. **[BUG]** Race condition in concurrent saves — `src/db.ts:45`
2. **[FIX]** Missing error boundary — `src/App.tsx:12`
3. **[CONSIDER]** Extract to custom hook — `src/Form.tsx:34`

After each batch:

Batch 1 done: AUTO: 2 fixed | BUG: 1 | FIX: 2

──────────

Step 3: Summary & Options (After All Batches)

Total: BUG: X | FIX: X | CONSIDER: X (auto-fixed: Y)

Issues:
1. [BUG] ... — `path:line`
2. [FIX] ... — `path:line`

What to fix?
- a) BUG + FIX [recommended]
- b) BUG only
- c) All including CONSIDER
- d) Custom (e.g., "1,3")

I'll assume a) if you don't specify.

Learnings:
- Any patterns worth adding to AGENTS.md?
- Any new review checks to add to this file?

STOP. Wait for selection.

──────────

Step 4: Execute Fixes

Process fixes batch-by-batch (same grouping):

  1. Update todo list with selected fixes
  2. For each batch:

- Read relevant file(s) - Apply fixes - Mark complete

  1. Run linter if applicable

Severity Guide

BUG (Logic/Security):

  • Business logic errors, wrong conditions
  • Race conditions, data loss
  • Security: injection, XSS, exposed secrets
  • API routes missing auth middleware
  • Null/undefined not handled
  • Edge cases that break

FIX (Quality):

  • Type safety gaps, unsafe casts
  • Missing error handling
  • Test coverage gaps
  • AI slop (WHAT comments, unnecessary try/catch, as any)
  • Missing validation
  • Combined API routes that should be separate
  • POST routes used for mutations instead of server actions
  • Barrel files / re-export patterns

CONSIDER (Opinions):

  • Refactoring opportunities
  • "I would do it differently"
  • Performance micro-optimizations
  • Style preferences

Git Commands

# Staged
git diff --cached
git diff --cached --name-only

# All uncommitted
git diff HEAD
git diff HEAD --name-only

Error Handling

ErrorResponse
No changes"Check git status or specify files"
File not foundList available, ask to specify
Binary filesSkip, mention in summary
Large file (>10k)"Review specific sections?"

平台分布

Codex

34.36%
按下载量换算51

Claude

32.87%
按下载量换算48

Cursor

20.35%
按下载量换算30

Gemini CLI

9.87%
按下载量换算15

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

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。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