Works with the AI Agents you already use

    Claude CodeClaude CodeCursorCursorCodex CLICodex CLIMuseMuseDotsDots+22 more

    Code Review Specialist

    1

    Get a review that earns its verdict. Trace the change against its requirements, prioritize concrete defects and define what must change before acceptance.

    $5

    Secure checkout via Stripe

    Money-back guarantee

    Converts to your local currency at checkout

    Security scanned
    Code Review Specialist

    Code Review Specialist

    Example session with this skill installed

    Review the complete authorization predicate below. The application policy is: an authenticated reader can view their own private notes; an authenticated administrator can view any note. All actors in this example are already authenticated. Criterion AUTH-1: reader id=7 must be allowed to view private note owner_id=7. Criterion AUTH-2: reader id=8 must be denied that private note. Criterion AUTH-3: an administrator must be allowed.

    Candidate excerpt C1, notes.py:

    def can_view(actor, note):
    return actor['role'] == 'admin' or note['public']

    Note N1 is {'owner_id': 7, 'public': False}. No repository snapshot, diff, callers or execution logs are supplied. Produce a bounded static ReviewReport, identify the exact defect and close condition, and distinguish source-supported findings from unperformed checks. Do not edit source or authorize a merge. Respond in English.

    • Read your context and instructions
    • Compiled the code review specialist

    Illustrative preview: this representative editorial result is not a recorded runtime session.

    task_id: NOTE-REVIEW-1
    artifact_id: REVIEW-C1
    version: 1
    status: CHANGES_REQUESTED
    producer / recipient: reviewer / predicate owner
    objective / scope: Check AUTH-1 through AUTH-3 against the supplied can_view predicate only.
    inputs / sources: Candidate excerpt C1 and note N1 in the request.
    confirmed_decisions: Actors are authenticated before this predicate; private-note rules are explicit.
    recommendations / pending: Correct the ownership branch; obtain current source binding and affected checks.
    criteria: AUTH-1, AUTH-2, AUTH-3
    next_action: Predicate owner corrects AUTH-1 and provides the new candidate plus allowed/denied evidence.

    ReviewReport
    review_outcome: CHANGES_REQUESTED
    candidate_ref: Supplied excerpt C1; no immutable repository binding provided.
    base_ref / candidate_manifest: Not supplied.
    spec_ref: AUTH-1 through AUTH-3 in the request.
    reviewer / independence: Static review in this context; no distinct-context independence is established. Authorship, specification and evidence-collector overlap were not supplied.
    scope_reviewed / exclusions: Complete supplied predicate; callers, endpoint enforcement and runtime behavior excluded.

    Finding F1 — P2; established by source

    • Candidate / criterion: C1 / AUTH-1.
    • Location: notes.py, can_view return expression.
    • Trigger: reader id=7 requests note N1, owned by id=7 and marked public=False.
    • Expected: allow the owner. Actual by source reasoning: both comparisons are false, so the expression returns False. This is not a recorded execution.
    • Consequence: the owner's legitimate private-note request is denied by this predicate. No data leak or production incident is established.
    • Required action / owner: Predicate owner implements the agreed ownership behavior while retaining the administrator rule.
    • Close condition: owner-allowed, other-reader-denied and administrator-allowed observations reference the corrected candidate.

    Criterion disposition

    • AUTH-1: NOT_SATISFIED by the supplied expression.
    • AUTH-2: UNPROVEN as executed behavior; the expression is statically consistent with denial for this fixture.
    • AUTH-3: UNPROVEN as executed behavior; the administrator branch is statically consistent with allowance.

    Evidence gaps: No source snapshot/diff, current runtime checks or caller coverage. Obtain a bound candidate and the three checks; inspect the real call path if endpoint acceptance is requested.
    Reviewer probes: None; no code or tests executed.
    Candidate binding after review: Supplied excerpt only, unchanged.
    Outcome limit: A concrete predicate defect was identified; this report grants no merge or release authorization.

    Connects securely to your tools. The creator never sees your data.

    About this skill

    A useful code review gives you a reason to change the code, not another list of preferences.

    Code Review Specialist equips your AI to inspect a software change against the behavior it was meant to deliver. It follows the diff into relevant callers and contracts, checks whether the supplied evidence supports acceptance and turns concrete problems into actionable findings. Get a review your engineer can use to make the next correction.

    Bring a pull request, candidate excerpt or implementation change, its requirements and any check results. Use it before accepting a feature, after a bug fix or when a green test suite still leaves an important behavior uncertain. The review stays within the source and environment actually available.

    Your report includes

    • Prioritized findings with location, trigger and consequence.
    • The expected behavior and a practical correction direction.
    • A requirement-by-requirement account of what is supported or missing.
    • Clear conditions for closing findings and the next review step.

    For an authorization predicate, it can trace a legitimate owner's denied request to the exact missing branch, distinguish that defect from uninspected callers and define the cases that should demonstrate the correction. It also considers relevant maintainability, recovery and boundary risks without turning personal style into a blocker.

    This standalone skill includes the full method, report template and buyer guidance. Supply your own AI access and project materials. Repository inspection or defect reproduction needs the corresponding host tools; the specialist reviews without silently rewriting the candidate.

    How to use

    Skills on Agensi run inside your AI agent. Copy the prompt, paste it into your agent, and it connects to Agensi and installs this skill for you. If a payment is needed, your agent shows it to you first.

    Reviews

    No reviews yet

    Be one of the first to try it. Every listed skill passes our trust checks below.

    Security scanned

    Passed our 8-point scan before listing

    Fresh listing

    Recently published to Agensi

    Money-back guarantee

    Doesn't do what its page promises? You get your money back.

    Trust & safety

    Security scanned

    Verified clean 16 days ago

    • Passed all security checks, Safe to install

    Listed16 days ago

    What's inside

    Frequently Asked Questions