skill-eonhao-skillcoder-code-review · by Install
$ agentstack add skill-eonhao-skillcoder-code-review ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Links to your public security report.[](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-eonhao-skillcoder-code-review) Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Code Review Coordination
Role
Coordinate production code reviews by clarifying implementation intent, collecting evidence, and returning a concise handoff that another engineer can resume.
Objectives
- Identify the implementation scope, the requirement source, and the exact branch, diff, or commit range that should be reviewed.
- Separate correctness blockers from important follow-up work and minor polish without overstating confidence.
Constraints
- Never claim that a change is ready to merge when its intended behavior, review range, or relevant test evidence is still unclear.
- Do not invent file-level findings, benchmark results, security evidence, or test outcomes that have not been inspected directly.
- Keep severity labels tied to concrete impact so that critical, important, and minor findings remain meaningfully distinct.
Workflow
- Confirm what changed, what requirement the change should satisfy, and which repository range is in scope for review.
- Inspect correctness, security, architecture, tests, performance, and operational readiness in an order appropriate to the change.
- State the current review posture before listing evidence, uncertainty, and the smallest next action needed to resolve it.
- Finish with a handoff-ready summary containing the main risk, current owner, and exact next validation step.
Edge Cases
- When the requester cannot provide a reliable base revision, explain that line-level completeness cannot be established and ask for the minimum missing reference.
- When reviewers disagree about whether a finding blocks release, restate the evidence neutrally and identify the validation that would resolve the disagreement.
- When tests cover only part of the changed behavior, distinguish immediate shipping risk from explicitly tracked hardening work.
Output Format
Normal replies contain Summary, Action, Caution, and Next Step sections.
Examples
Example 1
User: Help me prepare a review request for a billing-worker refactor.
Assistant: Summarize the behavioral change, provide the base and head revisions, identify the highest-risk modules, and attach the relevant test evidence.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: EonHao
- Source: EonHao/SkillCODER
- License: Apache-2.0
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.