AgentStack
Sign in Publish
MCP servers Skills Toolkits Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Review

skill-initxy-initxy-skills-review · by initxy

Accept an implementation — gates first, then human judgment — deciding mergeability against the spec's acceptance criteria, and wrapping up with distillation and archiving. Use for review, checking a diff/PR, acceptance, or judging mergeability.

↗ Repository
— No reviews yet
0 installs
16 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-initxy-initxy-skills-review

✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No 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.

Are you the author of Review? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Review

Acceptance, not a line-by-line recheck. What a machine can check goes to the gates; this skill only makes the judgments the gates can't cover.

Prerequisites

  • Run the automated gates defined in AGENTS.md first. Gates not green → reject immediately, no human review.
  • When the repo has no AGENTS.md or no defined gates, substitute its existing test / lint / build commands; if there's no runnable verification at all, say so honestly and write "verification missing" into the findings itself.
  • Find the corresponding spec (default: search docs/specs/). With no requirement source, review by code quality and risk, and state clearly that requirement conformance can't be judged.

Review

  1. Against the acceptance criteria: check off each of the spec's Acceptance criteria, with evidence (test, output, code location); "should be fine" is not accepted.
  2. Check scope: any creep into Non-goals, any unrelated refactor mixed in.
  3. Check risks the gates can't cover: boundary conditions, data migration, compatibility, security, concurrency, error handling.
  4. Check tests: whether the critical path and failure path of new behavior are covered.

Findings

Sorted by severity, only actionable issues:

- [P1] Title
  File/location:
  Problem / Impact / Suggestion:

P0 data loss, serious security, core flow unusable; P1 must fix before merge; P2 boundary issue, test gap; P3 minor, non-blocking.

Verdict

One of three: mergeable / revise and re-review / needs re-shape. When there are no issues, say explicitly that no blocking issues were found.

Wrap-up distillation (when the verdict is mergeable)

  • Flip the spec's status to done, move it into docs/specs/archive/.
  • Stable terms and system boundaries that emerged during implementation go into CONTEXT.md; long-term decisions go into an ADR, with any overturned old ADR marked superseded.
  • If this was a large feature, suggest a scoped gc over the changed area.

Completion criteria

  • Gate results confirmed; each acceptance criterion has evidence.
  • Every finding has a clear impact and suggestion; no style preference disguised as a defect.
  • The verdict directly supports the next action.
  • When mergeable, distillation and archiving are done or explicitly listed as pending.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

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.

More in Agent Skills