agentsclimarketplace

Gsd code review

Skill bitrails-dev/skills/gsd/skills/gsd-code-review

Handy AI skills

Install
npx -y skills add bitrails-dev/skills --skill gsd-code-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Review source files changed during a phase for bugs, security issues, and code quality problems

SKILL.md

2.4 KB, 493 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

<objective> Review source files changed during a phase for bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality problems.

Spawns the gsd-code-reviewer agent to analyze code at the specified depth level. Produces REVIEW.md artifact in the phase directory with severity-classified findings.

Arguments:

  • Phase number (required) — which phase's changes to review (e.g., "2" or "02")
  • --depth=quick|standard|deep (optional) — review depth level, overrides workflow.code_review_depth config
    • quick: Pattern-matching only (~2 min)
    • standard: Per-file analysis with language-specific checks (~5-15 min, default)
    • deep: Cross-file analysis including import graphs and call chains (~15-30 min)
  • --files file1,file2,... (optional) — explicit comma-separated file list, skips SUMMARY/git scoping (highest precedence for scoping)

Output: {padded_phase}-REVIEW.md in phase directory + inline summary of findings </objective>

<execution_context> @$HOME/.claude/get-shit-done/workflows/code-review.md </execution_context>

<context> Phase: $ARGUMENTS (first positional argument is phase number)

Optional flags parsed from $ARGUMENTS:

  • --depth=VALUE — Depth override (quick|standard|deep). If provided, overrides workflow.code_review_depth config.
  • --files=file1,file2,... — Explicit file list override. Has highest precedence for file scoping per D-08. When provided, workflow skips SUMMARY.md extraction and git diff fallback entirely.

Context files (CLAUDE.md, SUMMARY.md, phase state) are resolved inside the workflow via gsd-sdk query init.phase-op and delegated to agent via <files_to_read> blocks. </context>

<process> This command is a thin dispatch layer. It parses arguments and delegates to the workflow.

Execute the code-review workflow from @$HOME/.claude/get-shit-done/workflows/code-review.md end-to-end.

The workflow (not this command) enforces these gates:

  • Phase validation (before config gate)
  • Config gate check (workflow.code_review)
  • File scoping (--files override > SUMMARY.md > git diff fallback)
  • Empty scope check (skip if no files)
  • Agent spawning (gsd-code-reviewer)
  • Result presentation (inline summary + next steps) </process>

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most code review skills give in 493 tokens

Counted across 610 of the 674 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06

  • push back with technical reasoning if wrongin 60 of 610, across 24 files
  • ask for clarification on unclear itemsin 51 of 610, across 16 files
  • fix critical issues immediatelyin 45 of 610, across 29 files
  • implement one item at a timein 45 of 610, across 11 files
  • group findings by severityin 44 of 610, across 43 files
  • verify feedback against the codebasein 42 of 610, across 8 files
  • dispatch a code reviewer subagentin 39 of 610, across 23 files
  • fix important issues before proceedingin 37 of 610, across 22 files
  • test each fix individuallyin 35 of 610, across 7 files
  • reply in github comment threadsin 33 of 610, across 5 files
  • check for security vulnerabilitiesin 31 of 610, across 27 files
  • factualize corrections without over-explainingin 30 of 610, across 2 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • parse arguments and delegate to the workflow
  • produce a phase review markdown file
  • present an inline summary of findings

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.