Workbench code review
Skill Fearvox/multica-ultimate-workbench/skills/workbench-code-review
Public multi-agent workbench skill pack for SDD, review gates, context discipline, VM lanes, Sanity context, and autonomous agent coordination.
npx -y skills add Fearvox/multica-ultimate-workbench --skill workbench-code-reviewAssembled 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.
- 23 stars23 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
Findings-first review discipline for code, diffs, task plans, live workflow changes, and implementation evidence.
SKILL.md
1.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Workbench Code Review
Use this skill for reviewing code, diffs, task plans, live workflow changes, and implementation evidence before merge or closure.
Review Stance
- Findings first. Do not lead with praise or a broad summary.
- Order findings by severity and user impact.
- Tie every finding to a file, command, issue/comment ID, run ID, or observable behavior.
- Prefer concrete repro or blast-radius evidence over style opinions.
- If no issues are found, say that clearly and name remaining test gaps.
Severity
P0: security, data loss, irreversible action, or broken primary workflow.P1: likely user-facing regression or unsafe automation.P2: correctness gap, missing edge case, or weak verification.P3: maintainability, clarity, or low-risk cleanup.
Checklist
- Does the implementation match the promised objective?
- Are owner boundaries preserved?
- Are live mutations backed up and reversible?
- Are commands, IDs, and paths reproducible?
- Are tests or real-path checks sufficient for the blast radius?
- Did the change avoid unrelated refactors and hidden policy changes?
Output Contract
For findings:
SEVERITYLOCATIONISSUEWHY IT MATTERSREQUIRED FIX
For a clean review:
VERDICT: PASSEVIDENCE CHECKEDTEST GAPSRESIDUAL RISK