Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

requesting-code-review代码审查请求

Agent Skill

requesting-code-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。

总安装

672

周安装

28

GitHub Stars

25

下载量

224
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

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:requesting-code-review(代码审查请求)
来源仓库:https://github.com/oimiragieo/agent-studio
仓库路径:skills/requesting-code-review
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/oimiragieo/agent-studio --skill requesting-code-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 requesting-code-review

简介

requesting-code-review 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中快速定位候选结果。

  • 适用于代码审查流程、协作规范与反馈机制相关任务。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从 GitHub 仓库安装并使用。
  • 安装前需确认权限范围、维护状态及是否触发联网或文件操作。
  • 建议结合原始 README 核验具体用法和功能边界。

SKILL.md

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

  • After each task in subagent-driven development
  • After completing major feature
  • Before merge to main

Optional but valuable:

  • When stuck (fresh perspective)
  • Before refactoring (baseline check)
  • After fixing complex bug

How to Request

1. Get git SHAs:

BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:

Use Task tool with code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md

Placeholders:

  • {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} - What you just built
  • {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do
  • {BASE_SHA} - Starting commit
  • {HEAD_SHA} - Ending commit
  • {DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary

3. Act on feedback:

  • Fix Critical issues immediately
  • Fix Important issues before proceeding
  • Note Minor issues for later
  • Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)

Example

[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]

You: Let me request code review before proceeding.

BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent]
  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types

[Subagent returns]:
  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
  Issues:
    Important: Missing progress indicators
    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
  Assessment: Ready to proceed

You: [Fix progress indicators]
[Continue to Task 3]

Task Tool Template

Task({
  task_id: 'task-1',
  subagent_type: 'general-purpose',
  model: 'sonnet',
  description: 'Code review for {DESCRIPTION}',
  prompt: `You are the CODE-REVIEWER agent.

## Instructions
1. Read your agent definition: .claude/agents/specialized/code-reviewer.md
2. Read memory: .claude/context/memory/learnings.md

## Review Request

### What Was Implemented
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}

### Requirements/Plan
{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}

### Git Range to Review
**Base:** {BASE_SHA}
**Head:** {HEAD_SHA}

Run these commands to see the changes:
\`\`\`bash
git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
\`\`\`

## Memory Protocol
Record findings to .claude/context/memory/learnings.md when done.
`,
});

Integration with Workflows

Subagent-Driven Development:

  • Review after EACH task
  • Catch issues before they compound
  • Fix before moving to next task

Executing Plans:

  • Review after each batch (3 tasks)
  • Get feedback, apply, continue

Ad-Hoc Development:

  • Review before merge
  • Review when stuck

Red Flags

Never:

  • Skip review because "it's simple"
  • Ignore Critical issues
  • Proceed with unfixed Important issues
  • Argue with valid technical feedback

If reviewer wrong:

  • Push back with technical reasoning
  • Show code/tests that prove it works
  • Request clarification

See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

Iron Laws

  1. ALWAYS capture BASE_SHA and HEAD_SHA before dispatching a review — without the exact commit range, the reviewer cannot produce accurate diff analysis.
  2. NEVER skip code review because a change "seems simple" — small changes introduce the same classes of bugs as large ones; the author cannot see their own blind spots.
  3. ALWAYS fix Critical issues before proceeding to the next task — unfixed critical issues compound and become harder to isolate as more code is layered on top.
  4. NEVER argue with technically correct reviewer feedback — push back only when you have codebase evidence showing the reviewer lacks context or is factually wrong.
  5. ALWAYS request review at every mandatory checkpoint (after each subagent task, after major features, before merge) — review requested too late cannot prevent compounding errors.

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsCorrect Approach
Skipping review for "small" changesSmall changes introduce the same classes of bugs as large ones; "simple" is subjective and unreliableRequest review at every mandatory checkpoint regardless of perceived complexity
Dispatching reviewer without git SHAsReviewer cannot produce an accurate diff without a commit range; the review is inaccurate or incompleteCapture BASE_SHA and HEAD_SHA before every review dispatch
Proceeding past Critical issuesCritical issues compound; later tasks build on broken foundations that are expensive to fix retroactivelyFix all Critical issues before advancing to the next task
Treating reviewer feedback as optionalOptional review degrades code quality over time and compounds technical debt that can't be tracedFollow severity escalation: Critical → fix now, Important → fix before next task, Minor → note for later
Requesting review after batches of tasks instead of after each taskErrors from Task 1 contaminate Tasks 2–N; reviewers cannot isolate which task introduced which issueReview after each individual task before starting the next one

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.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

38.9%
按下载量换算87

Claude

31.07%
按下载量换算70

Cursor

16.76%
按下载量换算38

Gemini CLI

9.43%
按下载量换算21

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills