Install
$ agentstack add skill-rube-de-cc-skills-council-reference ✓ 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.
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
Council Reference Data
Structured Response Format
Every council agent MUST return this JSON structure:
{
"consultant": "gemini|codex|qwen|glm|kimi|claude-deep-review|claude-codebase-context",
"success": true,
"fallback": false,
"confidence": 0.0-1.0,
"severity": "critical|high|medium|low|none",
"findings": [
{
"type": "security|performance|quality|architecture|bug|documentation",
"severity": "critical|high|medium|low",
"description": "...",
"location": "file:line",
"recommendation": "..."
}
],
"summary": "One-paragraph summary"
}
location: MANDATORY for /council review findings. Format: file:line (e.g. src/api.ts:42).
Expertise Weight Matrix
Task Gemini Codex Qwen GLM-5.2 Kimi K2.5
Security 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.75 0.70
PR Review 0.85 0.90 0.80 0.75 0.80
Architecture 0.85 0.70 0.65 0.80 0.75
Code Quality 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.70 0.80
Performance 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.80
Brainstorm 0.65 0.60 0.90 0.85 0.80
Algorithms 0.70 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.80
Debugging 0.75 0.90 0.80 0.75 0.80
Scoring Thresholds
Score Meaning
───── ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
0 False positive. Doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
25 Might be real, but unverified. Could be false positive.
50 Real but minor. Unlikely to occur in practice.
75 Verified real. Will impact functionality. Important.
100 Confirmed. Frequent in practice. Evidence conclusive.
───── ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Filter threshold: Only findings scoring >= 80 appear in the final report.
False Positive Taxonomy
Score 0 (auto-reject) if a finding matches any of these:
- Pre-existing issue not introduced in the current changes
- Problem that a linter, typechecker, or compiler would catch
- Pedantic nitpick that a senior engineer would not call out
- General code quality complaint NOT backed by project CLAUDE.md
- Issue on lines that were NOT modified in the changes under review
- Intentional functionality change clearly related to the broader change
- Code with explicit lint-ignore or suppress comments
Synthesis Formula
Weighted Score = Σ(Opinion × Expertise × Confidence) / Σ(Expertise × Confidence)
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: rube-de
- Source: rube-de/cc-skills
- License: MIT
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.