Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to u9401066/rootcause-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/u9401066/rootcause-mcp/master/.claude/skills/code-review-workflow/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/u9401066/rootcause-mcpWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/u9401066/rootcause-mcp/code-review-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/u9401066/rootcause-mcp/code-review-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/u9401066/rootcause-mcp/code-review-workflow/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/u9401066/rootcause-mcp/code-review-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/u9401066/rootcause-mcp/code-review-workflow.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.01538 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00615 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00308 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00154 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-workflow scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-review-workflow — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 182 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
程式碼審查工作流
描述
完整的 PR/MR 審查流程，整合自動化檢查和多維度審查。
觸發條件
- 「審查 PR」「review PR」「審查流程」
- 「PRW: [PR 連結或分支]」
🔍 審查流程
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Code Review Workflow │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Phase 1: 📋 概覽 (Overview) │
│ ├─ 列出變更檔案 │
│ ├─ 統計變更行數 │
│ └─ 識別變更範圍 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Phase 2: 🤖 自動化檢查 (Automated) │
│ ├─ 靜態分析 (ruff, mypy) │
│ ├─ 死碼檢測 (vulture) │
│ ├─ 安全掃描 (bandit) │
│ └─ 測試執行 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Phase 3: 🏗️ 架構審查 (Architecture) │
│ ├─ [ddd-architect] DDD 合規檢查 │
│ ├─ 依賴方向驗證 │
│ └─ 模組化評估 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Phase 4: 🔒 安全審查 (Security) │
│ ├─ [security-reviewer] OWASP 檢查 │
│ ├─ 敏感資料偵測 │
│ └─ 認證/授權審查 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Phase 5: 📝 程式碼審查 (Code) │
│ ├─ [code-reviewer] 品質審查 │
│ ├─ 可讀性評估 │
│ ├─ 效能考量 │
│ └─ 測試覆蓋率 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Phase 6: 📊 總結 (Summary) │
│ ├─ 生成審查報告 │
│ ├─ 建議修改項目 │
│ └─ 批准/請求修改 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 182 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 65db84ccee47
code-review-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository u9401066/rootcause-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,538 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-review-workflow, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-workflow
A step-by-step process for reviewing a pull request or merge request, which is a proposed code change awaiting review. It combines file and change summaries, automated checks, and architecture review.
code-review
Review code for quality, maintainability, and correctness.
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.
verify-quality
A code-quality checker that measures complexity, size, naming, and common code smells. It reports problems such as duplicated code, unused code, and overly long functions.
verify-module
A module-checking skill that scans a project’s folders, code, and documentation. It expects each module to include a README.md and DESIGN.md, which explain how the module is used and why it was designed that way.
planning
ONLY for coordinated multi-artifact work: multiple workflows with dependencies, shared data-table schema/migration across tasks, or the user explicitly asked to review a plan first. If workflowbuildercreatetasks is not visible, load it via loadtool (search "create tasks"). Do NOT use for new one-off workflows…