Pre-landing PR review. An agent skill from LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills.

MITAuto-check: notesDevelopment

Install Review

skills CLI
$ npx skills add LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills --skill review -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills review --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/gstack/review .claude/skills/review && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
review
GitHub stars
2.2k
Token cost
~2.9k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,496 words
Files
4
Skills in repo
1,235
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Pre-landing PR review. An agent skill from LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills.

  • Works in 9 steps: Detect base branch → Check branch → Read the checklist → …
  • Tasks that involve Pull requests
  • SKILL.md covers Preamble (run first), AskUserQuestion Format, Contributor Mode and Step 0: Detect base branch, plus 9 more sections
  • Calls git and gh

What it does

Review is an agent skill from LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills. Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues.

Its SKILL.md is about 2.9k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 3 other files (for example `TODOS-format.md`, `checklist.md` and `greptile-triage.md`).

It sits in Development, covering Pull requests. It works with SQL. The repository describes itself as: 🧠 Curated collection of 1209+ best OpenClaw skills — weekly updated by MyClaw.ai. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Tasks that involve Pull requests

Example prompts

  • “/review”

Requirements

  • Pre-approved tools (allowed-tools): Bash, Read, Edit, Write, Grep, Glob, AskUserQuestion

Workflow steps

9 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Detect base branch
  2. Check branch
  3. Read the checklist
  4. 5: Check for Greptile review comments
  5. Get the diff
  6. Two-pass review
  7. Output findings
  8. 5: TODOS cross-reference
  9. 6: Documentation staleness check

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit e5199b5. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves these tools, so the agent can use them without asking each time:

    • Bash
    • Read
    • Edit
    • Write
    • Grep
    • Glob
    • AskUserQuestion

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • git
    • gh

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md. Its commands use git and gh, which can reach the network depending on how they are called.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Review loads about 2.9k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 42 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,496 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~42
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~2.9k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check: notes

The automated check noted patterns worth knowing about, such as sudo or a known installer.

  • NotePre-approves every shell command (allowed-tools: Bash)SKILL.md
    allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Edit, Write, Grep, Glob, AskUserQuestion

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills at commit e5199b5, republished under its MIT licence (© LeoYeAI). 1,496 words, ~2,929 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 3 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
review
description
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues.
allowed-tools
Bash, Read, Edit, Write, Grep, Glob, AskUserQuestion
version
1.0.0
<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from SKILL.md.tmpl — do not edit directly -->
<!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->

Preamble (run first)

bash
_UPD=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-update-check 2>/dev/null || .claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-update-check 2>/dev/null || true)
[ -n "$_UPD" ] && echo "$_UPD" || true
mkdir -p ~/.gstack/sessions
touch ~/.gstack/sessions/"$PPID"
_SESSIONS=$(find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin -120 -type f 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"

If output shows UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>: read ~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.

AskUserQuestion Format

ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:

  1. Re-ground: State the project, the current branch (use the _BRANCH value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
  2. Simplify: Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
  3. Recommend: RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]
  4. Options: Lettered options: A) ... B) ... C) ...

Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.

Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.

Contributor Mode

If _CONTRIB is true: you are in contributor mode. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.

At the end of each major workflow step (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!

Calibration — this is the bar: For example, $B js "await fetch(...)" used to fail with SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.

NOT worth filing: user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.

To file: write ~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md with all sections below (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):

# {Title}

Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:

**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}

## Steps to reproduce
1. {step}

## Raw output

{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}


## What would make this a 10
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}

**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}

Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. browse-js-no-await). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"

Step 0: Detect base branch

Determine which branch this PR targets. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.

  1. Check if a PR already exists for this branch: gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName If this succeeds, use the printed branch name as the base branch.

  2. If no PR exists (command fails), detect the repo's default branch: gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name

  3. If both commands fail, fall back to main.

Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent git diff, git log, git fetch, git merge, and gh pr create command, substitute the detected branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch."


Pre-Landing PR Review

You are running the /review workflow. Analyze the current branch's diff against the base branch for structural issues that tests don't catch.


Step 1: Check branch

  1. Run git branch --show-current to get the current branch.
  2. If on the base branch, output: "Nothing to review — you're on the base branch or have no changes against it." and stop.
  3. Run git fetch origin <base> --quiet && git diff origin/<base> --stat to check if there's a diff. If no diff, output the same message and stop.

Step 2: Read the checklist

Read .claude/skills/review/checklist.md.

If the file cannot be read, STOP and report the error. Do not proceed without the checklist.


Step 2.5: Check for Greptile review comments

Read .claude/skills/review/greptile-triage.md and follow the fetch, filter, classify, and escalation detection steps.

If no PR exists, gh fails, API returns an error, or there are zero Greptile comments: Skip this step silently. Greptile integration is additive — the review works without it.

If Greptile comments are found: Store the classifications (VALID & ACTIONABLE, VALID BUT ALREADY FIXED, FALSE POSITIVE, SUPPRESSED) — you will need them in Step 5.


Step 3: Get the diff

Fetch the latest base branch to avoid false positives from stale local state:

bash
git fetch origin <base> --quiet

Run git diff origin/<base> to get the full diff. This includes both committed and uncommitted changes against the latest base branch.


Step 4: Two-pass review

Apply the checklist against the diff in two passes:

  1. Pass 1 (CRITICAL): SQL & Data Safety, Race Conditions & Concurrency, LLM Output Trust Boundary, Enum & Value Completeness
  2. Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL): Conditional Side Effects, Magic Numbers & String Coupling, Dead Code & Consistency, LLM Prompt Issues, Test Gaps, View/Frontend

Enum & Value Completeness requires reading code OUTSIDE the diff. When the diff introduces a new enum value, status, tier, or type constant, use Grep to find all files that reference sibling values, then Read those files to check if the new value is handled. This is the one category where within-diff review is insufficient.

Follow the output format specified in the checklist. Respect the suppressions — do NOT flag items listed in the "DO NOT flag" section.


Show full SKILL.md (629 more words)Show less

Step 5: Output findings

Always output ALL findings — both critical and informational. The user must see every issue.

  • If CRITICAL issues found: output all findings, then for EACH critical issue use a separate AskUserQuestion with the problem, then RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because [one-line reason], then options (A: Fix it now, B: Acknowledge, C: False positive — skip). After all critical questions are answered, output a summary of what the user chose for each issue. If the user chose A (fix) on any issue, apply the recommended fixes. If only B/C were chosen, no action needed.
  • If only non-critical issues found: output findings. No further action needed.
  • If no issues found: output Pre-Landing Review: No issues found.
Greptile comment resolution

After outputting your own findings, if Greptile comments were classified in Step 2.5:

Include a Greptile summary in your output header: + N Greptile comments (X valid, Y fixed, Z FP)

Before replying to any comment, run the Escalation Detection algorithm from greptile-triage.md to determine whether to use Tier 1 (friendly) or Tier 2 (firm) reply templates.

  1. VALID & ACTIONABLE comments: These are already included in your CRITICAL findings — they follow the same AskUserQuestion flow (A: Fix it now, B: Acknowledge, C: False positive). If the user chooses A (fix), reply using the Fix reply template from greptile-triage.md (include inline diff + explanation). If the user chooses C (false positive), reply using the False Positive reply template (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history.

  2. FALSE POSITIVE comments: Present each one via AskUserQuestion:

    • Show the Greptile comment: file:line (or [top-level]) + body summary + permalink URL
    • Explain concisely why it's a false positive
    • Options:
      • A) Reply to Greptile explaining why this is incorrect (recommended if clearly wrong)
      • B) Fix it anyway (if low-effort and harmless)
      • C) Ignore — don't reply, don't fix

    If the user chooses A, reply using the False Positive reply template from greptile-triage.md (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history.

  3. VALID BUT ALREADY FIXED comments: Reply using the Already Fixed reply template from greptile-triage.md — no AskUserQuestion needed:

    • Include what was done and the fixing commit SHA
    • Save to both per-project and global greptile-history
  4. SUPPRESSED comments: Skip silently — these are known false positives from previous triage.


Step 5.5: TODOS cross-reference

Read TODOS.md in the repository root (if it exists). Cross-reference the PR against open TODOs:

  • Does this PR close any open TODOs? If yes, note which items in your output: "This PR addresses TODO: <title>"
  • Does this PR create work that should become a TODO? If yes, flag it as an informational finding.
  • Are there related TODOs that provide context for this review? If yes, reference them when discussing related findings.

If TODOS.md doesn't exist, skip this step silently.


Step 5.6: Documentation staleness check

Cross-reference the diff against documentation files. For each .md file in the repo root (README.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, CLAUDE.md, etc.):

  1. Check if code changes in the diff affect features, components, or workflows described in that doc file.
  2. If the doc file was NOT updated in this branch but the code it describes WAS changed, flag it as an INFORMATIONAL finding: "Documentation may be stale: [file] describes [feature/component] but code changed in this branch. Consider running /document-release."

This is informational only — never critical. The fix action is /document-release.

If no documentation files exist, skip this step silently.


Important Rules

  • Read the FULL diff before commenting. Do not flag issues already addressed in the diff.
  • Read-only by default. Only modify files if the user explicitly chooses "Fix it now" on a critical issue. Never commit, push, or create PRs.
  • Be terse. One line problem, one line fix. No preamble.
  • Only flag real problems. Skip anything that's fine.
  • Use Greptile reply templates from greptile-triage.md. Every reply includes evidence. Never post vague replies.

© LeoYeAI, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 3 other files in skills/gstack/review of LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills.

  • SKILL.md
  • TODOS-format.md
  • checklist.md
  • greptile-triage.md

Open the folder on GitHubat commit e5199b5

Compare with similar skills

Review next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Review compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Review this skillLeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills2.2k—~2.9kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT
Citus Merge Loopcitusdata/citus13k—~2.5kAutomated safety check: PassAGPL-3.0
SeekDB Code Reviewoceanbase/seekdb3.1k—~2.1kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Reviewtimeplus-io/proton2.3k—~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Scoping Change Relevancejaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers116—~2.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Review PRapache/shardingsphere21k—~6.4kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0

Similar skills

  • Citus Merge Loop

    citusdata/citus

    Take a list of citusdata/citus PR links or numbers and merge each one independently: sync it with its base branch, fix a red check-style job with make reindent, retry other red checks a bounded…

    13k GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • SeekDB Code Review

    oceanbase/seekdb

    Reviews seekdb pull requests and diffs for real defects in correctness, resources, concurrency, security and tests, reporting only Blocker or Major findings.

    3.1k GitHub stars~2.1k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Review

    timeplus-io/proton

    Review a Proton pull request or diff for correctness, streaming semantics, checkpointing, compatibility, and performance.

    2.3k GitHub stars~1.1k tokensUpdated 20 days ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Scoping Change Relevance

    jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers

    Classifies a diff into file tags and hunk tags - new public export, new endpoint, modified auth, SQL string, migration, added dependency, touched prompt - then maps each tag to the quality practices…

    116 GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Review PR

    apache/shardingsphere

    Review Apache ShardingSphere or user-authorized downstream pull requests and PR discussions from public or authorized repository evidence.

    21k GitHub stars~6.4k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Citus Backport

    citusdata/citus

    Backport one or more merged citusdata/citus main commits/PRs onto the active release branches.

    13k GitHub stars~3.2k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    DatabasesAuto-check passed

More from LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills

All 1,235 skills in this repo
  • DevOps Pipeline Management

    LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills

    Manages pipelines on a DevOps quality and efficiency platform through its OpenAPI: list workspaces and templates, create, update, run and cancel pipelines, and read run records.

    2.2k GitHub stars~4.2k tokensUpdated 2 mo ago
    Auto-check: notes
  • Feishu Document Collaboration

    LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills

    Patches OpenClaw's Feishu extension so an edited document triggers an isolated agent session that reads the doc and replies inline, turning it into a live chat space.

    2.2k GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated 2 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Files Memory System

    LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills

    Multi-context memory management system for OpenClaw agents with group-isolated storage, global shared memory, workspace organization, and group-specific skills isolation.

    2.2k GitHub stars~3.8k tokensUpdated 2 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • GEO-Claw AI Visibility Agent

    LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills

    Runs a brand's AI-search visibility work end to end: diagnosing how AI platforms represent it, repositioning it, producing AI-optimized content and monitoring ongoing mentions.

    2.2k GitHub stars~4.7k tokensUpdated 2 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Google Workspace CLI

    LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills

    Installs and authenticates the gws CLI, then automates Gmail, Drive, Sheets, Calendar, Docs, Chat and Tasks with ready-made recipes, persona bundles and security audits.

    2.2k GitHub stars~2.6k tokensUpdated 2 mo ago
    Auto-check: notes
  • HealthFit Health Advisors

    LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills

    Runs four advisor roles, a fitness coach, nutritionist, data analyst and TCM practitioner, to build a health profile and track workouts, diet and wellness over time.

    2.2k GitHub stars~4.4k tokensUpdated 2 mo ago
    Auto-check passed

Works with

Questions about Review

What does Review do?

Pre-landing PR review. An agent skill from LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills. Review is an agent skill from LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills. Pre-landing PR review.

When should I use Review?

Review fits situations like: tasks that involve Pull requests.

How do I install Review in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills --skill review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/gstack/review in LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills) into .claude/skills/review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Review in Codex?

Run `npx skills add LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills --skill review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/gstack/review in LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills) into .agents/skills/review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Review in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills --skill review -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/review, .gemini/skills/review, .github/skills/review and .opencode/skills/review in your project.

What does Review need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Review needs the command-line tools its instructions call (git and gh). Its frontmatter pre-approves these tools: Bash, Read, Edit, Write, Grep, Glob, AskUserQuestion.

Does Review access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Its commands use git and gh, which can reach the network depending on how they are called. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Review safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found notes only (pre-approves every shell command (allowed-tools: bash)), nothing it rates as a warning. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Review use?

Review is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Review use?

About 2.9k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 12k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Review?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Review: Citus Merge Loop (citusdata/citus, 13k stars), SeekDB Code Review (oceanbase/seekdb, 3.1k stars), Review (timeplus-io/proton, 2.3k stars) and Scoping Change Relevance (jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers, 116 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Review?

LeoYeAI (a GitHub user) maintains it in LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills, which has 2,161 GitHub stars. The repository holds 1,235 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on July 20, 2026.

Source: LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.