Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

differential-review(差别审查)

differential-review 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。

differential-review 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,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 42,645。

总安装 1,053周安装 43GitHub Stars 25下载 337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:differential-review(差别审查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/oimiragieo/agent-studio
仓库路径:skills/differential-review
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/oimiragieo/agent-studio --skill differential-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/oimiragieo/agent-studio --skill differential-review

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。

differential-review 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。适用于差异审查和比较分析相关的研究检索任务。

通过 GitHub 仓库安装,使用 npx skills add 命令添加技能。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。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。

来源仓库内路径:skills/differential-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/oimiragieo/agent-studio --skill differential-r…;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

differential-review 怎么安装?

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

differential-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。

differential-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。

differential-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。

differential-review 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,053 次,近一周安装 43 次,下载 337 次,GitHub 25 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。

differential-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。

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
differential-review

差别审查 · 本页

1,05325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

Differential Review

Security Notice

AUTHORIZED USE ONLY: These skills are for DEFENSIVE security analysis and authorized research:

  • Pull request security review for owned repositories
  • Pre-merge security validation in CI/CD pipelines
  • Security regression detection in code changes
  • Compliance validation of code modifications
  • Educational purposes in controlled environments

NEVER use for:

  • Reviewing code you are not authorized to access
  • Exploiting discovered vulnerabilities without disclosure
  • Circumventing code review processes
  • Any illegal activities

Step 1: Obtain the Diff

Git Diff Methods

# Review staged changes
git diff --cached

# Review specific commit
git diff HEAD~1..HEAD

# Review pull request (GitHub)
gh pr diff <PR-NUMBER>

# Review specific files
git diff --cached -- src/auth/ src/api/

# Review with context (10 lines)
git diff -U10 HEAD~1..HEAD

# Show only changed file names
git diff --name-only HEAD~1..HEAD

# Show stats (insertions/deletions per file)
git diff --stat HEAD~1..HEAD

Classify Changed Files

Prioritize review by security sensitivity:

PriorityFile PatternsReason
P0**/auth/**, **/security/**, **/crypto/**Direct security code
P0*.env*, **/config/**, **/secrets/**Configuration and secrets
P0**/middleware/**, **/guards/**, **/validators/**Security controls
P1**/api/**, **/routes/**, **/controllers/**Attack surface
P1package.json, requirements.txt, go.modDependency changes
P1Dockerfile, docker-compose.yml, *.yamlInfrastructure config
P2**/models/**, **/db/**, **/queries/**Data access layer
P2**/utils/**, **/helpers/**Shared utility code
P3**/tests/**, **/docs/**Tests and documentation

Step 2: Security-Focused Diff Analysis

Analysis Framework

For each changed file, evaluate these security dimensions:

2.1 Input Validation Changes
CHECK: Did the change modify input validation?
- Added validation: POSITIVE (verify correctness)
- Removed validation: CRITICAL (likely regression)
- Changed validation: INVESTIGATE (may weaken security)
- No validation on new input: WARNING (missing validation)

Red Flags:

  • Removing or weakening regex patterns
  • Commenting out validation middleware
  • Changing strict mode to loose
  • Adding any type or disabling type checks
  • Removing length limits or range checks
2.2 Authentication/Authorization Changes
CHECK: Did the change affect auth?
- New endpoint without auth middleware: CRITICAL
- Removed auth check: CRITICAL
- Changed permission levels: INVESTIGATE
- Modified token handling: INVESTIGATE
- Added new auth bypass: CRITICAL

Red Flags:

  • Routes added without authentication middleware
  • isAdmin checks removed or weakened
  • Token expiry extended significantly
  • Session management changes
  • CORS policy relaxation
2.3 Data Flow Changes
CHECK: Did the change introduce new data flows?
- User input to database: CHECK for injection
- User input to HTML: CHECK for XSS
- User input to file system: CHECK for path traversal
- User input to command execution: CHECK for command injection
- User input to redirect: CHECK for open redirect
2.4 Cryptographic Changes
CHECK: Did the change affect cryptography?
- Algorithm downgrade: CRITICAL (e.g., SHA-256 to MD5)
- Key size reduction: CRITICAL
- Removed encryption: CRITICAL
- Changed to ECB mode: CRITICAL
- Hardcoded key/IV: CRITICAL
2.5 Error Handling Changes
CHECK: Did the change affect error handling?
- Removed try/catch: WARNING
- Added stack trace in response: CRITICAL (info disclosure)
- Changed error to success: CRITICAL (fail-open)
- Swallowed exceptions: WARNING
2.6 Dependency Changes
CHECK: Did dependencies change?
- New dependency: CHECK for known CVEs
- Version downgrade: INVESTIGATE
- Removed security dependency: CRITICAL
- Changed to fork/alternative: INVESTIGATE
# Check new dependencies for known vulnerabilities
npm audit
pip audit
go list -m -json all | nancy sleuth

Step 3: Inline Security Comments

Comment Format

For each finding, provide a structured inline comment:

**SECURITY [SEVERITY]**: [Brief description]

**Location**: `file.js:42` (in diff hunk)
**Category**: [OWASP/CWE category]
**Impact**: [What could go wrong]
**Remediation**: [How to fix]
  • // Current (vulnerable)
  • db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = " + userId);

+ // Suggested (safe) + db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1", [userId]);

### Severity Levels for Diff Findings

| Severity | Criteria | Action |
|----------|----------|--------|
| **CRITICAL** | Exploitable vulnerability introduced | Block merge |
| **HIGH** | Security regression or missing control | Block merge |
| **MEDIUM** | Weak pattern that could lead to vulnerability | Request changes |
| **LOW** | Style issue with security implications | Suggest improvement |
| **INFO** | Security observation, no immediate risk | Note for awareness |

## Step 4: Differential Security Report

### Report Template

Differential Security Review

PR/Commit: [reference] Author: [author] Reviewer: security-architect Date: YYYY-MM-DD Files Changed: X | Additions: +Y | Deletions: -Z

Security Impact Summary

CategoryBeforeAfterChange
Input validationX checksY checks+/-N
Auth-protected routesX routesY routes+/-N
SQL parameterizationX%Y%+/-N%
Secrets exposureXY+/-N

Findings

CRITICAL
  1. [Finding with full details and remediation]
HIGH
  1. [Finding with full details and remediation]
MEDIUM
  1. [Finding with full details and remediation]

Verdict

  • [ ] APPROVE: No security issues found
  • [ ] APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS: Minor issues, fix before deploy
  • [ ] REQUEST CHANGES: Security issues must be addressed
  • [ ] BLOCK: Critical vulnerability introduced

## Step 5: Automated Diff Scanning

### Semgrep Diff Mode

Scan only changed files

semgrep scan --config=p/security-audit --baseline-commit=main

Scan diff between branches

semgrep scan --config=p/security-audit --baseline-commit=origin/main

Output as SARIF for CI integration

semgrep scan --config=p/security-audit --baseline-commit=main --sarif --output=diff-results.sarif


### Custom Diff Security Checks

Check for secrets in diff

git diff --cached | grep -iE "(password|secret|api.?key|token|credential)\s*[=:]"

Check for dangerous function additions

git diff --cached | grep -E "^\+" | grep -iE "(eval|exec|system|innerHTML|dangerouslySetInnerHTML)"

Check for removed security middleware

git diff --cached | grep -E "^\-" | grep -iE "(authenticate|authorize|validate|sanitize|escape)"

Check for new deferred security items (unresolved markers)

git diff --cached | grep -E "^\+" | grep -iE "(T0D0|F1XME|HACK|XXX).*(security|auth|vuln)"


### GitHub Actions Integration

name: Security Diff Review on: [pull_request] jobs: security-diff: runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: - uses: actions/checkout@v4 with: fetch-depth: 0 - name: Semgrep diff scan uses: returntocorp/semgrep-action@v1 with: config: p/security-audit - name: Check for secrets run: | git diff origin/main..HEAD | grep -iE "(password|secret|api.?key|token)\s*[=:]" && exit 1 || exit 0


## Common Security Regressions in Diffs

| Pattern | What Changed | Risk |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Removed `helmet()` middleware | Security headers removed | Header injection, clickjacking |
| Changed `sameSite: 'strict'` to `'none'` | Cookie policy weakened | CSRF attacks |
| Removed rate limiting middleware | Rate limit removed | Brute force, DoS |
| Added `cors({origin: '*'})` | CORS wildcard | Cross-origin attacks |
| Removed `csrf()` middleware | CSRF protection removed | CSRF attacks |
| Changed `httpOnly: true` to `false` | Cookie accessible to JS | XSS token theft |

## Related Skills

- [`static-analysis`](https://github.com/oimiragieo/agent-studio/blob/HEAD/.claude/skills/differential-review/../static-analysis/SKILL.md) - Full codebase static analysis
- [`variant-analysis`](https://github.com/oimiragieo/agent-studio/blob/HEAD/.claude/skills/differential-review/../variant-analysis/SKILL.md) - Pattern-based vulnerability discovery
- [`semgrep-rule-creator`](https://github.com/oimiragieo/agent-studio/blob/HEAD/.claude/skills/differential-review/../semgrep-rule-creator/SKILL.md) - Custom detection rules
- [`insecure-defaults`](https://github.com/oimiragieo/agent-studio/blob/HEAD/.claude/skills/differential-review/../insecure-defaults/SKILL.md) - Hardcoded credentials detection
- [`security-architect`](https://github.com/oimiragieo/agent-studio/blob/HEAD/.claude/skills/differential-review/../security-architect/SKILL.md) - STRIDE threat modeling

## Agent Integration

- **code-reviewer** (primary): Security-augmented code review
- **security-architect** (primary): Security assessment of changes
- **penetration-tester** (secondary): Verify exploitability of findings
- **developer** (secondary): Security-aware development guidance

## Iron Laws

1. **ALWAYS** classify changed files by security sensitivity (P0–P3) before reviewing — never dive into code without a triage map; you will miss the highest-risk changes.
2. **NEVER** treat removal of security middleware (auth, CSRF, rate-limit, helmet) as a routine refactor — always flag as CRITICAL and require explicit justification in the PR description.
3. **ALWAYS** use `git diff -U10` for context-extended diffs — the default 3-line context is insufficient to detect security regressions from function reordering or middleware removal.
4. **NEVER** approve a diff that adds a new public endpoint without verifying authentication middleware is applied — unauthenticated routes in diffs are high-frequency security regressions.
5. **ALWAYS** check deleted lines as carefully as added lines — removed security controls (validation, logging, auth checks) are as dangerous as new vulnerable code.

## Anti-Patterns

| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Correct Approach |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reviewing only changed lines without reading surrounding context | Security regressions appear as refactors when surrounding auth/middleware is removed | Use `git diff -U10`; read full function scope before and after the change |
| Treating security dependency removal as a dependency update | Removing a security package (helmet, csurf) eliminates its protections silently | Classify all dependency changes; flag security-package removals as CRITICAL |
| Skipping deleted-line review | Removed input validation, auth checks, or logging are invisible in addition-only review | Review deletions first; build the "what protections were removed" list |
| Approving new routes without auth check verification | New endpoints skip existing middleware when not explicitly added | Verify middleware chain for every new route/controller in the diff |
| Using informal severity like "looks fine" without CWE/OWASP reference | Severity ambiguity makes remediation prioritization inconsistent | Use the structured format: SECURITY [SEVERITY], CWE, OWASP category, remediation |

## Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)

**Before starting:** Read `.claude/context/memory/learnings.md`

**After completing:**

- New pattern -> `.claude/context/memory/learnings.md`
- Issue found -> `.claude/context/memory/issues.md`
- Decision made -> `.claude/context/memory/decisions.md`

> ASSUME INTERRUPTION: If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.

平台分布

Codex

33.49%
按下载量换算113

Claude

30.56%
按下载量换算103

Cursor

20.45%
按下载量换算69

Gemini CLI

10.26%
按下载量换算35

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