Code ReviewerSAFE
An open-source AI agent that brings the power of Gemini directly into your terminal.
Overview
An open-source AI agent that brings the power of Gemini directly into your terminal.
413cf28d32d5OBSERVED · 2026-10-21What it tells the agent
The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.
---
name: code-reviewer
description:
Use this skill to review code. It supports both local changes (staged or working tree)
and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). It focuses on correctness, maintainability,
and adherence to project standards.
---
# Code Reviewer
This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests.
## Workflow
### 1. Determine Review Target
* **Remote PR**: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR.
* **Local Changes**: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes).
### 2. Preparation
#### For Remote PRs:
1. **Checkout**: Use the GitHub CLI to checkout the PR.
```bash
gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER>
```
2. **Preflight**: Execute the project's standard verification suite to catch automated failures early.
```bash
npm run preflight
```
3. **Context**: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history.
#### For Local Changes:
1. **Identify Changes**:
* Check status: `git status`
* Read diffs: `git diff` (working tree) and/or `git diff --staged` (staged).
2. **Preflight (Optional)**: If the changes are substantial, ask the user if they want to run `npm run preflight` before reviewing.
### 3. In-Depth Analysis
Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars:
* **Correctness**: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors?
* **Maintainability**: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to understand and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns.
* **Readability**: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines?
* **Efficiency**: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes?
* **Security**: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices?
* **Edge Cases and Error Handling**: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors?
* **Testability**: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (even if preflight checks pass)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness.
### 4. Provide Feedback
#### Structure
* **Summary**: A high-level overview of the review.
* **Findings**:
* **Critical**: Bugs, security issues, or breaking changes.
* **Improvements**: Suggestions for better code quality or performance.
* **Nitpicks**: Formatting or minor style issues (optional).
* **Conclusion**: Clear recommendation (Approved / Request Changes).
#### Tone
* Be constructive, professional, and friendly.
* Explain *why* a change is requested.
* For approvals, acknowledge the specific value of the contribution.
### 5. Cleanup (Remote PRs only)
* After the review, ask the user if they want to switch back to the default branch (e.g., `main` or `master`).Trust audit
SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.
| Layer | What it checks | Result |
|---|---|---|
| L0 | Provenance & inventory | PASS |
| L1 | Static analysis of the code | NA |
| L2 | Instruction surface (what it tells the agent) | PASS |
| L3 | Class-specific surface | PASS |
| L4 | Behavioural (sandbox) | SKIPPED |
What the source does
- Filesystem
- none-observed
- Network
- none-observed
- Shell
- none-observed
- Dependencies
- pinned
- Secrets in source
- none-found
Findings (1)
docs/CONTRIBUTING.md
Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.
413cf28d32d5full audit observations/trust-audit/skill/google-gemini__code-reviewer.json · Report an issue / request a re-scanAudit history
Every audit this skill has had.
| Date | Source | Verdict | Grade | Score | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-21 | 413cf28d32d5 | SAFE | B | 89 | first audit |
Questions
What does the code-reviewer — google-gemini/gemini-cli skill do?
An open-source AI agent that brings the power of Gemini directly into your terminal.
Is code-reviewer — google-gemini/gemini-cli safe to install?
The audit found nothing in the source that contradicts what it says it does, and graded it B (89/100). Grade A is held back for packages that have also passed a sandboxed behavioural run, which is why a clean skill reads B.
What can code-reviewer — google-gemini/gemini-cli access on my machine?
The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.
How current is this page?
The grade is for one exact copy of the source (413cf28d32d5), read on 2026-10-21. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.
Add this badge to your README
Shows this page's audit result and links back to it. It updates when the audit does.
[](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/google-gemini/code-reviewer/)
Not your listing, or something out of date? Claim or update your listing.