Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

laravel_code-review-requests(Laravel 代码审查 requests)

laravel_code-review-requests 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。

laravel_code-review-requests 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,权限为权限未标注;许可证为 MIT,暂无第三方扫描结果,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 44,028。

总安装 941周安装 40GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 330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
MIT

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:laravel_code-review-requests(Laravel 代码审查 requests)
来源仓库:https://github.com/jpcaparas/superpowers-laravel
仓库路径:skills/laravel_code-review-requests
安装命令:
npx skills add jpcaparas/superpowers-laravel --skill "laravel:code-review-requests"
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。

AgentSkills.tonpx skills
npx skills add jpcaparas/superpowers-laravel --skill "laravel:code-review-requests"

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。

Laravel 代码审查 requests 工具,用于发起或分析 Pull Request 质量。适合在 AI 宿主中提升代码可读性、安全性与团队协作效率。通过 npx skills add 命令安装,实际行为以来源仓库定义为准。使用前应确认 Git 工作流与 CI/CD 配置,避免干扰正常合并流程。

laravel_code-review-requests 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/laravel_code-review-requests

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 jpcaparas/superpowers-laravel --skill "laravel:code-review-reques…;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

    权限没有明确标注,第一次使用时只给一个无关紧要的任务,观察它到底读了哪些文件和网络。

常见问题

6 条

laravel_code-review-requests 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add jpcaparas/superpowers-laravel --skill "laravel:code-review-requests"。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

laravel_code-review-requests 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。

laravel_code-review-requests 需要什么权限?

权限级别没有明确标注。第一次使用时建议只给无关紧要的任务,观察它实际读写了哪些内容。

laravel_code-review-requests 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

laravel_code-review-requests 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 941 次,近一周安装 40 次,下载 330 次。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。

laravel_code-review-requests 安全吗?

没有查到第三方扫描结果,安全性无法从公开资料判断,安装前请自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

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。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。

先想清楚的地方

  • 没有第三方扫描结果,安全性只能靠自己读源码判断。
  • 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

  • 要求有安全扫描结论才肯安装的团队。
  • 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
laravel_code-review-requests

Laravel 代码审查 requests · 本页

941—权限未标注MIT未收录

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

Code Review Requests

Focused review requests get actionable feedback. Vague requests get generic advice.

Specify Focus Areas

Vague

"Review this code"

Focused

"Review OrderService for security and performance:

Focus on:

  • Authorization checks (are we verifying user owns the order?)
  • SQL injection risks (any raw queries?)
  • N+1 query problems (eager loading correct?)
  • Transaction handling (atomic operations?)
  • Error handling (graceful failures?)

Code:

class OrderService
{
    public function createOrder(User $user, array $items): Order
    {
        $order = Order::create(['user_id' => $user->id]);

        foreach ($items as $item) {
            OrderItem::create([
                'order_id' => $order->id,
                'product_id' => $item['product_id'],
                'quantity' => $item['quantity'],
            ]);
        }

        return $order;
    }
}

Why it works: Clear focus areas guide the review toward specific concerns.

Provide Context

Insufficient Context

"Is this controller okay?"

Sufficient Context

"Review ProductController for our API:

Context:

  • Public API used by mobile app and web frontend
  • Handles 10k requests/day, needs to scale to 100k
  • Products have categories (belongsTo) and reviews (hasMany)
  • Using Laravel 11.x with Sanctum authentication
  • Following repository pattern (ProductRepository exists)

Concerns:

  • Is the response format consistent with our other API endpoints?
  • Are we handling errors appropriately?
  • Should we add rate limiting?

Code:

class ProductController extends Controller
{
    public function index(Request $request)
    {
        $products = Product::with('category')
            ->paginate(20);

        return ProductResource::collection($products);
    }
}

Why it works: Context about usage, scale, patterns, and specific concerns.

Architectural Feedback

Unclear

"Is the architecture good?"

Clear

"Review the architecture of our payment processing:

Current design:


PaymentController → PaymentService → StripeGateway (direct Stripe API calls) → PaymentRepository (database)

Concerns:

  1. PaymentService is tightly coupled to Stripe. What if we add PayPal?
  2. No retry logic for failed payments
  3. Webhook handling is in a separate controller, feels disconnected
  4. No audit trail of payment attempts

Questions:

  • Should we use a PaymentGatewayInterface for multiple providers?
  • Where should retry logic live? Service or job?
  • How to structure webhook handling?
  • Best way to add audit logging?

Current code: [attach PaymentService.php]"

Why it works: Explains current design, identifies concerns, asks specific questions.

Laravel-Specific Review

Generic

"Check if this follows best practices"

Laravel-Specific

"Review for Laravel conventions and best practices:

Code:

class UserController extends Controller
{
    public function store(Request $request)
    {
        $validated = $request->validate([
            'email' => 'required|email|unique:users',
            'password' => 'required|min:8',
        ]);

        $user = new User();
        $user->email = $validated['email'];
        $user->password = Hash::make($validated['password']);
        $user->save();

        return response()->json($user, 201);
    }
}

Check for:

  • Should validation be in a Form Request?
  • Is mass assignment safer than manual assignment?
  • Should we use a Resource for the response?
  • Is password hashing handled correctly?
  • Should user creation be in a service/action?
  • Any missing authorization checks?
  • Following Laravel 11.x conventions?"

Why it works: Asks about specific Laravel patterns and conventions.

Specify Experience Level

Unclear Depth

"Review my code"

Clear Depth

"Review this authentication implementation:

My experience: Junior developer, 6 months with Laravel

What I need:

  • Explain any security issues in detail (I'm still learning auth best practices)
  • Point out Laravel conventions I'm missing
  • Suggest improvements with examples
  • If something is wrong, explain why and show the correct approach

Code:

public function login(Request $request)
{
    $user = User::where('email', $request->email)->first();

    if ($user && Hash::check($request->password, $user->password)) {
        $token = $user->createToken('auth')->plainTextToken;
        return response()->json(['token' => $token]);
    }

    return response()->json(['error' => 'Invalid credentials'], 401);
}

Questions:

  • Is this secure enough for production?
  • What am I missing?
  • How would a senior developer write this?"

Why it works: Sets expectations for depth and style of feedback.

Review Request Templates

Template: Security Review

**Focus:** Security vulnerabilities and best practices
**Code:** [attach code]
**Context:** [authentication method, data sensitivity, user roles]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] SQL injection risks
- [ ] XSS vulnerabilities
- [ ] Authorization checks
- [ ] Data validation
- [ ] Sensitive data exposure

Template: Performance Review

**Focus:** Performance and scalability
**Code:** [attach code]
**Current metrics:** [response times, query counts]
**Expected load:** [requests/day, concurrent users]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] N+1 queries
- [ ] Missing indexes
- [ ] Inefficient algorithms
- [ ] Caching opportunities
- [ ] Memory usage

Template: Architecture Review

**Focus:** Design patterns and maintainability
**Code:** [attach code]
**Current architecture:** [describe structure]
**Team size:** [number of developers]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] Separation of concerns
- [ ] Testability
- [ ] Coupling between components
- [ ] Code duplication
- [ ] Complexity

Template: Laravel Conventions

**Focus:** Laravel best practices and conventions
**Code:** [attach code]
**Laravel version:** [11.x or 12.x]
**Specific concerns:**
- [ ] Following framework conventions
- [ ] Using appropriate Laravel features
- [ ] Eloquent relationships correct
- [ ] Validation approach
- [ ] Resource/response formatting

Quick Reference

Request effective reviews:

  • Specify focus - Security, performance, architecture, conventions
  • Provide context - Purpose, scale, patterns, constraints
  • Ask specific questions - Don't just ask "is this good?"
  • Reference Laravel - Ask about framework-specific patterns
  • Set depth - Junior needs explanations, senior needs quick feedback

Focused requests = actionable feedback.

平台分布

Claude Code

26.62%
按下载量换算88

Antigravity

25.69%
按下载量换算85

windsurf

18.65%
按下载量换算62

OpenCode

11.97%
按下载量换算40

Gemini CLI

8.58%
按下载量换算28

Codex

3.43%
按下载量换算11

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

权限未标注

当前来源未能明确判断权限范围,默认进入异常复核队列。

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