AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified Apache-2.0 Self-run

Code Review

skill-yassimba-loom-code-review · by Yassimba

Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks t…

No reviews yet
0 installs
0 views
view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-yassimba-loom-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-yassimba-loom-code-review)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
yesterday

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

About

Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:

  • Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
  • Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?

Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.

The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If ai-docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing: with br installed, treat Beads as the tracker by default (workflows: [issue-tracker-beads.md](../setup-project/issue-tracker-beads.md)) and suggest /setup-project to record the choice; otherwise run /setup-project.

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.

Capture the diff command once: git diff ...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log ..HEAD --oneline.

Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse ) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

  1. Issue references in the commit messages (#123, Closes #45, GitLab !67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in ai-docs/agents/issue-tracker.md.
  2. A path the user passed as an argument.
  3. A PRD/spec file under ai-docs/ (e.g. ai-docs/plans//PRD.md) or specs/ matching the branch name or feature.
  4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".

3. Identify the standards sources

Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.

On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (Refactoring, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:

  • The repo overrides. A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
  • Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.

Each smell reads what it ishow to fix; match it against the diff:

  • Mysterious Name — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
  • Duplicated Code — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
  • Feature Envy — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
  • Data Clumps — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
  • Primitive Obsession — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
  • Repeated Switches — the same switch/if-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
  • Shotgun Surgery — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
  • Divergent Change — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
  • Speculative Generality — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
  • Message Chains — long a.b().c().d() navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
  • Middle Man — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
  • Refused Bequest — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.

4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel

Standards sub-agent prompt — include:

  • The full diff command and commit list.
  • The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, plus the smell baseline from step 3 pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.
  • The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."

Spec sub-agent prompt — include:

  • The diff command and commit list.
  • The path or fetched contents of the spec.
  • The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words."

If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.

5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under ## Standards and ## Spec headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do not merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see Why two axes).

End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue within each axis (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.

Why two axes

A change can pass one axis and fail the other:

  • Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → Standards pass, Spec fail.
  • Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → Spec pass, Standards fail.

Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.

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.