Agent skill

Miro Code Review

by miroapp in miroapp/miro-ai

A skill your agent uses when the user wants to create a visual code review on a Miro board from a pull/merge request (GitHub, GitLab, or any forge), local uncommitted changes, or a branch comparison…

MITAuto-check: warningsDevelopment

Install Miro Code Review

The automated check flagged lines worth reading first. See the safety section below.

skills CLI
$ npx skills add miroapp/miro-ai --skill miro-code-review -a claude-code

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

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install miroapp/miro-ai miro-code-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/miroapp/miro-ai.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/miro-code-review .claude/skills/miro-code-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
miro-code-review
GitHub stars
160
Token cost
~4.8k tokens
SKILL.md length
2,505 words
Files
8 (incl. references)
Skills in repo
5
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

A skill your agent uses when the user wants to create a visual code review on a Miro board from a pull/merge request (GitHub, GitLab, or any forge), local uncommitted changes, or a branch comparison…

  • Works in 6 steps: Identify the source from the user's… → Extract Changes → Analyze Changes → …
  • The user wants to create a visual code review on a Miro board from a pull/merge request (GitHub
  • SKILL.md covers Workflow, Output and References
  • Calls git, gh and glab; needs GITHUB_TOKEN and GITLAB_TOKEN

What it does

Miro Code Review is an agent skill from miroapp/miro-ai. Use when the user wants to create a visual code review on a Miro board from a pull/merge request (GitHub, GitLab, or any forge), local uncommitted changes, or a branch comparison — produces a file-changes table, summary/architecture/security docs, and architecture diagrams, then links them back from the PR/MR.

Its SKILL.md is about 4.8k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 8 other files, including reference files (for example `references/background.md`, `references/diagram-conventions.md` and `references/document-templates.md`).

It sits in Development, covering Code review and Diagrams. It works with GitLab, GitHub and Git. The repository describes itself as: Official Miro AI developer tools and integrations. Includes MCP server configuration, Claude Code skills, and resources for building AI-powered experiences with Miro boards. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • The user wants to create a visual code review on a Miro board from a pull/merge request (GitHub
  • Local uncommitted changes
  • A branch comparison — produces a file-changes table
  • Summary/architecture/security docs

Example prompts

  • “/miro-code-review”

Requirements

  • A credential in GITHUB_TOKEN
  • A credential in GITLAB_TOKEN

Workflow steps

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

  1. Identify the source from the user's request
  2. Extract Changes
  3. Analyze Changes
  4. Risk Assessment
  5. Create Miro Board Content
  6. Post link back to PR/MR

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit b6408e1. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • git
    • gh
    • glab

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

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md. Its commands use git, gh and glab, 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 these keys or tokens, usually read from environment variables:

    • GITHUB_TOKEN
    • GITLAB_TOKEN

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

Context cost

Miro Code Review loads about 4.8k tokens when it runs, and up to ~9.6k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 82 tokens; SKILL.md has 2,505 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~82
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~4.8k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~9.6k

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: warnings

The automated check found patterns that need a careful read before installing.

  • WarningMentions a credentials file (SSH keys, cloud or package-manager tokens)SKILL.md:30
    he user already has configured (e.g. `~/.netrc`, env var tokens like `$GITHUB_TOKEN`, `$GITLAB_TOKEN`)

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 miroapp/miro-ai at commit b6408e1, republished under its MIT licence (© miroapp). 2,505 words, ~4,800 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/miro-code-review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 7 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
miro-code-review
description
Use when the user wants to create a visual code review on a Miro board from a pull/merge request (GitHub, GitLab, or any forge), local uncommitted changes, or a branch comparison — produces a file-changes table, summary/architecture/security docs, and architecture diagrams, then links them back from the PR/MR.

Visual Code Review

Generate a comprehensive visual code review on a Miro board from a pull/merge request, local changes, or a branch comparison. Includes architecture analysis, security review, and optionally enriches with enterprise documentation. After the artifacts are created, link them back from the PR/MR description so reviewers can find them without leaving their forge.

The user provides a Miro board URL plus one source: a PR/MR number, owner/repo#number (or group/project!number), a full PR/MR URL, the keyword "local changes", or a branch name to compare against the default branch. The skill is platform-agnostic: it detects the forge from the URL or the configured git remote and uses whichever CLI is available locally.

Workflow

1. Identify the source from the user's request

Determine the source type and infer the platform from the URL or configured git remote:

  • A bare number → PR/MR in the current repo (infer the platform from the configured git remote: git remote get-url origin)
  • owner/repo#number (or group/project!number for GitLab-style) → PR/MR in an external repo on the same platform as the current remote, unless a host is given
  • A full URL → extract host, owner/group, repo/project, and PR/MR number from the URL; the host determines the platform
  • "local changes" / uncommitted work → local diff only, no PR
  • A branch name → local diff against the default branch (main or whatever the remote shows as default)
Tool selection

Pick the CLI based on what's installed and what the source points at. Do not assume gh. Run command -v <cli> to check availability before invoking:

  • GitHub URLs / github.com remote → gh CLI if available
  • GitLab URLs / gitlab.com or self-hosted GitLab → glab CLI if available
  • If no first-party CLI is available for the detected platform, fall back to authenticated REST via curl using whatever credentials the user already has configured (e.g. ~/.netrc, env var tokens like $GITHUB_TOKEN, $GITLAB_TOKEN)
  • For local / branch-comparison sources, plain git is sufficient — no platform CLI needed

State the detected platform and tool in chat output before proceeding.

2. Extract Changes

Fetch two things, regardless of platform:

  1. Metadata: title, description/body, author, list of changed files with additions/deletions per file
  2. Unified diff of the change

Use whichever CLI matches the platform detected in §1; the JSON/text shape will differ between forges — normalize fields downstream.

GitHub example (gh):

bash
# Current repo
gh pr view $PR_NUMBER --json title,body,author,files,additions,deletions
gh pr diff $PR_NUMBER

# External repo
gh pr view $PR_NUMBER --repo $OWNER/$REPO --json title,body,author,files,additions,deletions
gh pr diff $PR_NUMBER --repo $OWNER/$REPO

GitLab example (glab):

bash
# Current project
glab mr view $MR_NUMBER -F json
glab mr diff $MR_NUMBER

# External project
glab mr view $MR_NUMBER -R $GROUP/$PROJECT -F json
glab mr diff $MR_NUMBER -R $GROUP/$PROJECT

REST fallback (any platform): issue an authenticated curl to the platform's REST endpoint for the PR/MR and its diff. Use the user's configured token ($GITHUB_TOKEN, $GITLAB_TOKEN, etc.) and pass Accept: application/vnd.github.v3.diff (or platform equivalent) for the diff.

For Local Changes:

bash
git status --porcelain
git diff HEAD

For Branch Comparison:

bash
DEFAULT_BRANCH=$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@')
git log $DEFAULT_BRANCH..HEAD --oneline
git diff $DEFAULT_BRANCH...HEAD

Capture once and reuse for every file reference in §5 (table cells, document bullets, diagram labels). Pin links to the head SHA so they survive force-pushes. Record:

  • LINK_HOST, LINK_OWNER/LINK_REPO (or LINK_GROUP/LINK_PROJECT) — from §1
  • LINK_SHA — PR/MR head commit SHA (fall back to git rev-parse HEAD for local/branch sources)
  • LINK_BASE_SHA — base commit SHA (PR/MR target tip, or git merge-base for branch comparisons); required by §5 "Showing change". If unreachable, skip "before" diagrams and announce once in chat.
  • LINK_TEMPLATE — host-shaped blob URL with a {path} placeholder and optional #L<start>-L<end> anchor. For no-remote sources (local changes or a branch with no remote/PR) set it to "" and render plain paths — never invent URLs.

State the chosen template in chat before creating artifacts. See references/source-links.md for the per-platform SHA-fetch commands, URL templates by forge, and the no-remote / unreachable-base handling.

3. Analyze Changes

For each changed file, determine:

Basic Analysis:

  • Status: Added, Modified, or Deleted
  • Change Summary: Brief description combining what changed and review points
  • Risk Level: See risk assessment below

Architecture Analysis:

  • New components or modules introduced
  • Dependency changes (new imports, package updates)
  • Interface/API modifications
  • Pattern changes (design patterns introduced or violated)
  • Breaking changes requiring consumer updates

Security Analysis:

  • Input validation and sanitization
  • Authentication/authorization changes
  • Sensitive data handling (logging, storage)
  • Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, command)
  • Cryptography usage
  • Configuration security
4. Risk Assessment
Risk LevelCriteria
HighSecurity-sensitive, auth/authz, database migrations, core business logic, breaking API changes, cryptography
MediumAPI changes, configuration, shared utilities, new dependencies, data model changes
LowTests, documentation, styling, localization, internal refactoring
4.5 Triage: decide what (if anything) to create

Every artifact must earn its place. Before doing any creation work, decide whether the PR is worth visualizing at all and which artifact types would actually help a reviewer.

Bail-out rule. If all of the following hold, create no Miro artifacts and report only in chat:

  • ≤ 2 files changed, AND
  • < 20 lines changed (additions + deletions combined), AND
  • No file marked High risk in §4, AND
  • No security-sensitive paths touched (auth, crypto, config, migrations).

In that case, the entire skill output is a single chat message of the form:

PR is trivial (N files, ±M lines, no high-risk areas). Skipping Miro visualization — a board would not add review value. PR/MR description was not modified.

Skip §5 and §6 entirely.

Value gate (per artifact). When the bail-out does not apply, still only create an artifact if it tells a reviewer something the diff itself does not already make obvious:

  • Table — create when ≥ 3 files changed or mixed risk levels exist. For 1–2 file PRs that don't bail out, skip the table.
  • Summary doc — create when the PR has non-trivial intent that isn't already captured in the PR title/body, OR when ≥ 2 high-risk items need callouts. Skip if it would just paraphrase the PR description.
  • Architecture doc — create only if structural changes are detected (new modules, modified public interfaces, dependency changes, breaking changes). Skip otherwise.
  • Security doc — create only when security-sensitive paths are touched (see §3 "Security Analysis"). Never create as a checklist-only artifact.
  • Diagram — create only when the change involves multi-component flow, control/data path changes, or structural relationships that are hard to grasp from the diff. Render as a side-by-side before/after pair by default (see §5 "Showing change"); use a single annotated "after" diagram only when the change is purely additive and touches ≤ 3 elements. Explicitly skip diagrams that would be a single node, two nodes with one arrow, or a literal restatement of the diff.

Announce the plan in chat before creating anything, e.g.:

Plan: 1 table, 1 summary doc, no diagrams (changes are localized to a single function).

This makes the triage visible and lets the user redirect before any board content is created.

5. Create Miro Board Content

Principle: every artifact must earn its place. If an artifact would not help a reviewer understand the PR faster than the diff alone, do not create it. See §4.5 for the triage rules.

Scale content up to these caps based on PR size, and apply the §4.5 value gates — fewer artifacts is fine.

Linking conventions

Every file reference produced in §5 must be a clickable hyperlink to the source platform when a base URL is available. Use the LINK_TEMPLATE and LINK_SHA captured in §2.

  • When LINK_TEMPLATE is set (PR/MR or branch with a known remote): build the URL by substituting the file {path}. Add a line anchor #L<start>-L<end> when calling out a specific hunk (high-risk files, security findings, architecture callouts). Resolve start/end from the diff hunks captured in §2 (@@ -a,b +c,d @@, use the new-file range). Skip the anchor if the reference spans multiple non-contiguous hunks.
  • When LINK_TEMPLATE is empty (local changes or no remote): render every file reference as a plain path. Do not invent URLs.

Per-artifact rules:

  • Table → File column: put the full URL as the cell content. Miro renders URLs in text cells as clickable links. With no remote, put the plain path.
  • Documents: use markdown links — [path/to/file.ts](url) for whole-file references and [path/to/file.ts:42-58](url#L42-L58) for hunk references. Apply this in every file mention (Overview, Key Changes, High-Risk Areas, Architecture > New Components / Modified Interfaces, Security > Security-Sensitive Changes, etc.).
  • Diagrams: keep node labels as plain paths — the Miro diagram tool does not document clickable nodes. When a node corresponds to a single source file, append the URL as a second line in the node label so a reader can copy it.

Positioning:

Prefer laying artifacts out in a single row so the reviewer can scan them left-to-right. Pass placement to the Miro MCP tools per their schemas.

Scaling Guidelines
PR SizeFilesLOC (±)DocumentsDiagrams
Trivial1–2< 20none (bail out per §4.5)none
Small1–5< 1000–1 summary0–1 flow
Medium6–15< 5001–2 (summary + deep-dive if needed)1–3
Large16–30< 15002–3 (summary + architecture + security if applicable)2–4
Very Large30+≥ 15003+ (by subsystem)3+

A side-by-side before/after pair counts as one diagram for the budgets above — the column limits conceptual artifacts, not raw board widgets.


File Changes Table

Create first (appears at board center). Using the Miro MCP table tool, create a table with four columns in this order:

  1. Status — a fixed-set column with values Added, Modified, Deleted, color-coded green / orange / red respectively.
  2. File — a text column containing the full source URL built per §5 "Linking conventions" (Miro renders URLs in text cells as clickable). Use the plain path when no remote URL is available.
  3. Change — a text column with a brief summary of changes and key review points.
  4. Risk — a fixed-set column with values Low, Medium, High, color-coded green / orange / red respectively.

Pick the column types and option shape from the table tool's live schema.

For very large PRs (30+ files), create separate tables:

  • High-risk changes table
  • Standard changes table

Show full SKILL.md (967 more words)Show less
Documents

Document 1: Main Summary — create when the §4.5 value gate for the summary doc passes. Skip if the PR description already covers the same ground.

Document 2: Architecture Analysis — create only when the §4.5 architecture-doc value gate passes (the diff introduces new modules, modifies public interfaces, changes dependencies, or adds breaking changes). Skip otherwise, even on Medium/Large PRs.

Document 3: Security Analysis — create only when security-sensitive paths are touched (auth, crypto, config, migrations, input handling). Never create as a checklist-only artifact on a PR with no security-relevant diff.

Additional Documents — for Very Large PRs, create per-subsystem documents in the same row ("API Changes Analysis", "Database Migration Review", "UI/Frontend Changes", etc.).

See references/document-templates.md for the full markdown template of each document.


Diagrams

Create diagrams based on the type of changes. Position after the last document (continue x increments of 800).

Showing change: before/after vs. annotated

Every diagram must make the delta visible at a glance, not just the post-change state.

  • Default: side-by-side before/after pair. Build two diagrams of the same type with the same DSL conventions and place them adjacently on the same y-row. Build the "before" from the LINK_BASE_SHA revision (use git show $LINK_BASE_SHA:path when the unified diff doesn't carry enough surrounding structure), and the "after" from LINK_SHA.
  • Single annotated "after" diagram instead when all of these hold:
    • The change is purely additive (no deleted files, no removed classes/components, no removed edges in the relevant subsystem), AND
    • The additions do not rearrange existing relationships (no rewired callers, no moved responsibilities), AND
    • There are ≤ 3 new nodes/edges to mark.
  • If LINK_BASE_SHA is unreachable (shallow clone, history pruned), degrade every pair to a single annotated "after" diagram and reuse the chat announcement from §2.
Marking convention

Primary signal is the label prefix (per-element styling is not guaranteed by the Miro Mermaid renderer): [ADDED] (after diagram only), [REMOVED] (before diagram only), [UPDATED] (both diagrams, prefix in the after only); unmarked elements are unchanged context. Prefixes alone must be self-sufficient. Additionally emit Mermaid classDef directives as a best-effort colour layer.

See references/diagram-conventions.md for the full prefix semantics and the classDef block to emit.

Diagram Selection Guide:

Change TypeDiagram TypePatternPurpose
Feature addition (purely additive)flowchartSingle annotated (after)Show new components and how they wire in
Refactoringclass diagramSide-by-side before/afterStructural rearrangement is the whole point
API/integration changesequence diagramSide-by-side before/afterFlow shape changes
DB migration / schema changeER diagramSide-by-side before/afterSchema delta is the focus
Bug fixflowchartSingle annotated (after)Mark the fix point in the flow
Data pipeline restructureflowchartSide-by-side before/afterData flow shape changes
Mixed / large refactorper-subsystemSide-by-side per subsystemOne pair per affected boundary

Diagram Positions:

Place a side-by-side pair adjacent to each other so the delta is visible at a glance. Otherwise let the row layout from §5 "Positioning" carry — pass placement to the Miro MCP diagram tool per its schema.

Diagram (or pair)When to create
Main flow/architecture pairAlways
Component relationships pairMedium+ PRs with structural change
Sequence/interaction pairAPI/integration changes
ER pairData pipeline / schema changes
Single annotated (additions only)Purely additive change, ≤ 3 new elements

Each diagram should show:

  • Affected components/modules (highlighted)
  • Data/control flow through changed code
  • Dependencies between changed files
  • Trust boundaries (for security-relevant changes)
  • Where a node corresponds to a single source file, append its URL on a second line of the label so a reader can copy it (paths only — diagram nodes are not clickable). Skip the URL when no remote is available. Use LINK_BASE_SHA in URLs on before diagrams; use LINK_SHA on after diagrams.
  • The change markers from §5 "Marking convention" applied to every modified/added/removed element — the diagram or pair must make the delta visible at a glance.
6. Post link back to PR/MR

Once the artifacts are created, surface the link from the PR/MR itself so reviewers see it without leaving their forge.

Skip this step entirely when:

  • The source is "local changes"
  • The source is a branch with no associated open PR/MR

In those cases the link is reported only in chat output (see §Output below).

Append a delimited block (reusing the same <!-- miro-pr-docs:start --> … <!-- miro-pr-docs:end --> markers each run) to the existing description, replacing it in place if already present and never overwriting the user-authored portion. Use the same CLI selection from §1 to read, splice, and write the body back; if editing fails for lack of permission, post the block as a PR/MR comment instead and note it in chat.

See references/pr-linking.md for the exact block format, link rules, idempotency rules, and per-platform (gh/glab/REST) commands.

Output

If the §4.5 bail-out applied, the entire output is the trivial-PR chat message — no board link, no description update, nothing else.

Otherwise, after completion provide:

  1. Link to the Miro board (or frame, if moveToWidget was provided)
  2. Confirmation that the PR/MR description was updated, or that we left a comment as a fallback, or that the post step was skipped because the source was local / branchless
  3. Summary of elements created (X docs, Y diagrams as N pairs + M single annotated, Z table rows). Mention base revision <short LINK_BASE_SHA> and head revision <short LINK_SHA> in this chat summary only — do not place these SHAs on the Miro board. Also note which artifact types were intentionally skipped per §4.5, with a one-line reason.
  4. High-risk files requiring careful review
  5. Security findings (if any critical/high)
  6. Architecture concerns (if any breaking changes)

References

  • references/risk-assessment.md — detailed scoring criteria
  • references/review-patterns.md — review patterns
  • references/source-links.md — per-platform SHA-fetch commands and blob-URL templates for §2
  • references/diagram-conventions.md — diagram change-marking prefixes and the Mermaid classDef block (§5)
  • references/document-templates.md — full markdown templates for the summary, architecture, and security documents (§5)
  • references/pr-linking.md — block format, link/idempotency rules, and per-platform commands for posting the link back to the PR/MR (§6)
  • references/background.md — review philosophy, visual-review benefits, the artifact-selection table, and the board layout reference

© miroapp, 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 7 other files (references) in skills/miro-code-review of miroapp/miro-ai.

  • SKILL.md
  • references/background.md
  • references/diagram-conventions.md
  • references/document-templates.md
  • references/pr-linking.md
  • references/review-patterns.md
  • references/risk-assessment.md
  • references/source-links.md

Open the folder on GitHubat commit b6408e1

Compare with similar skills

Miro Code 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.

Miro Code Review compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Miro Code Review this skillmiroapp/miro-ai160—~4.8kAutomated safety check: WarnMIT
Visual Reviewai-dynamo/dynamo8.2k—~4.5kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Greploop Appsmichaelshimeles/skills1.3k1 repos~3.6kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Qodo PR Resolversbusso/claudeclaw194—~4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
PR Review State Fetchprisma/orm48k—~767Automated safety check: PassApache-2.0
degit Project ScaffoldingRich-Harris/degit7.9k—~534Automated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Visual Review

    ai-dynamo/dynamo

    Create self-contained interactive HTML code-review dashboards from GitHub or GitLab pull requests, checked-out branch diffs, or supplied unified diffs, with correctness and safe-to-merge scores…

    8.2k GitHub stars~4.5k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Greploop Apps

    michaelshimeles/skills

    Loops on a large pull request, merge request or Perforce changelist, fixing Greptile findings until it scores 5/5 with no unresolved comments.

    1.3k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~3.6k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Qodo PR Resolver

    sbusso/claudeclaw

    Review and resolve PR issues with Qodo - get AI-powered code review issues and fix them interactively (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps)

    194 GitHub stars~4k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Official

    Fetches a pull request's canonical review state as JSON, validates it, and renders markdown, a text summary and triage target files from it using bundled scripts.

    48k GitHub stars~767 tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • degit Project Scaffolding

    Rich-Harris/degit

    Downloads a repository snapshot or template with degit into an empty folder, from GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Sourcehut or a Gist, optionally at a branch, tag or commit.

    7.9k GitHub stars~534 tokensUpdated 24 days ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Requesting Code Review

    HezaoHezao/poirot

    Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix. An agent skill from HezaoHezao/poirot.

    250 GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~1.6k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from miroapp/miro-ai

  • Documentation architecture for this repository. An agent skill from miroapp/miro-ai.

    160 GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 20 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Miro Code Spec

    miroapp/miro-ai

    A skill your agent uses when the user wants to extract a Miro board's specs (documents, diagrams, prototypes, tables, frames, images) to local .miro/specs/ files for AI-assisted planning and…

    160 GitHub stars~4.7k tokensUpdated 20 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • A skill your agent uses when the user wants to explain or visualize a codebase on a Miro board — produces a minimal, notation-correct set of architecture / structure / behavior diagrams (flowchart…

    160 GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated 20 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Skills Development

    miroapp/miro-ai

    A skill your agent uses when authoring or revising plugin SKILL.md files in this repo.

    160 GitHub stars~238 tokensUpdated 20 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Works with

Categories

Questions about Miro Code Review

What does Miro Code Review do?

A skill your agent uses when the user wants to create a visual code review on a Miro board from a pull/merge request (GitHub, GitLab, or any forge), local uncommitted changes, or a branch comparison…. Miro Code Review is an agent skill from miroapp/miro-ai. Use when the user wants to create a visual code review on a Miro board from a pull/merge request (GitHub, GitLab, or any forge), local uncommitted changes, or a branch comparison — produces a file-changes table, summary/architecture/security docs, and architecture diagrams, then links them back from the PR/MR.

When should I use Miro Code Review?

Miro Code Review fits situations like: the user wants to create a visual code review on a Miro board from a pull/merge request (GitHub; local uncommitted changes; A branch comparison — produces a file-changes table; summary/architecture/security docs.

How do I install Miro Code Review in Claude Code?

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

How do I install Miro Code Review in Codex?

Run `npx skills add miroapp/miro-ai --skill miro-code-review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/miro-code-review in miroapp/miro-ai) into .agents/skills/miro-code-review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Miro Code 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 miroapp/miro-ai --skill miro-code-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/miro-code-review, .gemini/skills/miro-code-review, .github/skills/miro-code-review and .opencode/skills/miro-code-review in your project.

What does Miro Code Review need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Miro Code Review needs the command-line tools its instructions call (git, gh and glab) and credentials named GITHUB_TOKEN and GITLAB_TOKEN. Our summary lists: A credential in GITHUB_TOKEN; A credential in GITLAB_TOKEN.

Does Miro Code 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 Miro Code Review safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md flagged 1 warning(s): mentions a credentials file (ssh keys, cloud or package-manager tokens). Read the flagged lines before installing; the check is not a guarantee either way.

What licence does Miro Code Review use?

Miro Code 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 Miro Code Review use?

About 4.8k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 19k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 4.8k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Miro Code Review?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Miro Code Review: Visual Review (ai-dynamo/dynamo, 8.2k stars), Greploop Apps (michaelshimeles/skills, 1.3k stars), Qodo PR Resolver (sbusso/claudeclaw, 194 stars) and PR Review State Fetch (prisma/orm, 48k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Miro Code Review?

miroapp (a GitHub organization) maintains it in miroapp/miro-ai, which has 160 GitHub stars. The repository holds 5 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 17, 2026.

Source: miroapp/miro-ai on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.