agentleFS
Sign inStart free
VodouAIVodouAI/OS/skills/templates/pr-review-pipeline/SKILL.md

pr-review-pipeline

Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

workflow template — automated pull request review with security audit + style check + summary; pre-installed, activates in Phase 2

  • Reads credentials

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Run the repo's linter + formatter + test suite.

    line 70

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

pr-review-pipeline

A 3-stage automated PR review: security audit, style/linting pass, then human-readable summary. Useful for open-source maintainers, ExecDesk CTO reviews, or compliance trails.

Phase 1 status: pre-installed but inactive.

Inputs

Tasks bound to this template must have metadata.pr_url set at creation (e.g. via webhook from GitHub's pull_request.opened event, or manually via ./do board create … --metadata '{"pr_url": "https://github.com/...PR/123"}').

Stages

Stage 1 — Security audit

<!-- AGENT_ACTIONS_1: { "step_key": "security_audit", "assignee_default": "security-reviewer", "skills": ["board-worker", "security-pr-audit", "github-code-review"], "workspace": "scratch", "required_artifacts": { "metadata.security_findings_count": "^[0-9]+$", "metadata.security_blocking": "^(true|false)$" }, "on_success": "style_check", "on_failure": "security_audit", "max_runtime_seconds": 1800, "max_retries": 1, "budget_usd_cap": 2.50 } -->

Pull the PR diff, scan for: secrets in code (API keys, tokens, .env contents), unsafe SQL, command injection, auth bypass, XSS surface, dependency CVEs. Output: a structured finding list with severity. Sets metadata.security_blocking=true if any high-severity finding requires resolution before merge.

Stage 2 — Style check

<!-- AGENT_ACTIONS_2: { "step_key": "style_check", "assignee_default": "engineer", "skills": ["board-worker", "lint-runner"], "workspace": "worktree", "required_artifacts": { "metadata.lint_errors": "^[0-9]+$", "metadata.format_diff_lines": "^[0-9]+$", "metadata.tests_run": "^[0-9]+$" }, "on_success": "summary", "on_failure": "style_check", "max_runtime_seconds": 1200, "max_retries": 1, "budget_usd_cap": 1.00 } -->

Run the repo's linter + formatter + test suite. Capture counts and diffs. No human judgment yet; just structured signals.

Stage 3 — Human-readable summary

<!-- AGENT_ACTIONS_3: { "step_key": "summary", "assignee_default": "reviewer", "skills": ["board-worker", "pr-summary-writer"], "workspace": "scratch", "required_artifacts": { "metadata.summary_posted_to_pr": "^true$", "metadata.recommendation": "^(approve|request_changes|comment)$" }, "on_success": null, "on_failure": "summary", "max_runtime_seconds": 900, "budget_usd_cap": 1.50, "requires_approval_on": ["running→done"] } -->

The reviewer reads the previous two stages' output and writes a structured PR comment with: TL;DR, security findings, style findings, test coverage delta, and a final recommendation (approve / request_changes / comment). Posts the comment back to the PR. Approval gate before done so a human signs off on the recommendation before it goes live.

Total budget cap

~$5 per PR. Tunable per-repo via task budgets.

When to use vs not

✓ Use it when you maintain a repo with frequent contributions, want consistent review quality, and trust the security-reviewer's track record.

✗ Skip it when:

  • Solo dev on personal projects (overhead > value)
  • The PR is from a long-trusted maintainer (manual review is fine + faster)
  • The repo has special context the pipeline doesn't know (use ship-a-feature for those)

Auto-trigger (Phase 2+)

Wire to Vodou-channels webhook for pull_request.opened events. The webhook handler creates the task with metadata.pr_url set + workflow_template_id="pr-review-pipeline". The board takes over from there.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free