AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Operating Code Review

skill-qingye-lab-rootloom-operating-code-review · by qingye-lab

Review code, diffs, pull requests, migrations, or architecture without modifying files. Lead with severity-ranked evidence-backed findings, challenge root-cause claims, and disclose cleared and unreviewed scope.

No reviews yet
0 installs
12 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-qingye-lab-rootloom-operating-code-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.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-qingye-lab-rootloom-operating-code-review)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
11d ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

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

About

Code review

Review only. Do not modify code unless the user explicitly changes the task.

Scope

Read the requested diff plus the smallest sufficient callers, consumers, contracts, tests, configuration, schemas, generated behavior, and one analogous sibling. Treat the author's explanation and previous findings as leads, not proof.

Load specialized References only when Diff Facts require them:

  • auth, trust boundaries, secrets, injection, or unsafe parsing:

[security-review.md](references/security-review.md);

  • migrations, DDL, ORM models, persistent serialization, or stored formats:

[data-and-migration-review.md](references/data-and-migration-review.md);

  • manifests, lockfiles, packaging, CI, deployment, or release changes:

[dependency-and-release-review.md](references/dependency-and-release-review.md);

  • formal UI, interaction, accessibility, responsive, or visual changes:

[ui-review.md](references/ui-review.md).

Finding standard

A finding must include:

  • severity: Critical, High, Medium, or Low;
  • exact file and line/symbol;
  • failure mode and triggering conditions;
  • evidence from a code path, contract mismatch, reproduction, or missing durable test;
  • the smallest concrete correction;
  • confidence: verified, strongly inferred, or uncertain.

Do not report style preferences as defects. Separate questions and optional improvements from findings.

Review method

Start from the failure surface and trace ownership, callers, and consumers. Read the full relevant diff. Compare it with source-of-truth schemas, manifests, docs, CI, and tests. Attempt to disprove the strongest completion claim and test negative paths, cleanup, retries, cancellation, timeouts, partial failure, and mixed versions as applicable.

A guard, flag, journal, abstraction, or workflow step earns its place only when the review can name the observable failure, owning boundary, executable enforcement, regression proof, and decision it changes.

For a defect repair, require:

ROOT_CAUSE_ALIGNMENT: PASS | FAIL | NOT_APPLICABLE

PASS requires evidence for the trigger, violated invariant, root cause, and repair at the owning boundary. Caller-only special cases, swallowed exceptions, arbitrary retries/delays, widened timeouts, silent defaults, duplicated state, or weakened tests are possible false fixes until repository evidence proves otherwise.

Output

Start with ## Findings, ordered by severity. Then state ROOT_CAUSE_ALIGNMENT. Add questions or optional improvements only when useful.

Finish with verification gaps. If there are no material findings, say so explicitly and list the concrete cleared surfaces, strongest counterexample attempted, analogous implementation checked, and unavailable or unreviewed evidence.

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.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.