Live survey304 models · 14 providers · 22,792 auditsAudited grill-with-docs · SAFE →What changedHow we verifyllms.txt

Agent skill · Audited from source

Review

skill · oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenixMIT licenceAudited 18 Oct 2026 · source 492f17636999

★ 567pushed 2 days ago
✓SAFEGrade B · 89/100 · 18 Oct 2026 · 492f176
567repo stars · whole oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix

Is it safe? Yes — SAFE, grade B (89/100). We read this skill's source at commit 492f17636999 and found no filesystem, network or shell access and no hard-coded secrets. What it does: Review Elixir/Phoenix changes before committing — bugs, security, Ecto, LiveView, and Oban anti-patterns, via parallel specialist agents. Use when asked to review changes, a component, a diff, or a PR.

Ask an AI about this pageGChatGPTCClaudePPerplexityGeGeminiXGrok
More
Cite

Cite this page

ModelsAtlas. “Review (oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix)”. Retrieved 18 Oct 2026. https://modelsatlas.com/skills/oliver-kriska/review

12 skills are called “Review”. You are viewing oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix.

and 7 more with this name.

Trust audit

Audit 0.4.1 · source read 18 Oct 2026

Trust score89/100✓SAFE B
0 critical0 high0 medium0 low0 info

SAFE means nothing in the source contradicts what the skill says it does. Grade B is shared by 16,667 of 17,602 audited skills.

What the source does

  • FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
  • NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
  • ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
  • DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
  • SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

LayerWhat we checkResultFindings
L0 ProvenanceRepo owner, licence, archive status, activityPASS0
L1 Static sourceSecrets, path traversal, supply chain, hidden codeNA0
L2 InstructionsPrompt injection, authority framing, hidden directivesPASS0
L3 InventoryThe files and declarations match the sourcePASS0
L4 SandboxRun in isolation and watch behaviourSKIPPED why0

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

Findings (0)

No findings at any severity. We re-audit when the source changes.

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 492f17636999 · 18 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

Provenance

Who published it, and what the verdict is pinned to

  • Publisheroliver-kriska GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
  • Source folderoliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/plugins/elixir-phoenix/skills/reviewThe exact folder we audited
  • LicenceMITAs the repository states it
  • Commit pinned for this verdict492f17636999A new audit runs when the source changes
  • Repository statusNot archivedLast push 2 days ago
  • Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

What it tells the agent

Full source on GitHub ↗

Its description: Review Elixir/Phoenix changes before committing — bugs, security, Ecto, LiveView, and Oban anti-patterns, via parallel specialist agents. Use when asked to review changes, a component, a diff, or a PR.

---
name: review
description: "Review Elixir/Phoenix changes before committing — bugs, security, Ecto, LiveView, and Oban anti-patterns, via parallel specialist agents. Use when asked to review changes, a component, a diff, or a PR."
effort: high
argument-hint: "[test|security|oban|deploy|iron-laws|all]"
---

# Review Elixir/Phoenix Code

Review code by spawning parallel specialist agents. Find and
explain issues — do NOT create tasks or fix anything.

## Usage

```
/phx:review                          # Auto-detects task ID from branch/commits
/phx:review test                     # Review test files only
/phx:review security                 # Run security audit only
/phx:review oban                     # Review Oban workers only
/phx:review deploy                   # Validate deployment config
/phx:review iron-laws                # Check Iron Law violations only
/phx:review ENA-8931                 # Force Linear issue
/phx:review #42                      # Force GitHub issue
/phx:review .claude/plans/auth/plan.md    # Force plan / spec file
/phx:review --no-requirements        # Skip requirements coverage check
/phx:review --codex                  # Add Codex CLI as cross-model reviewer
```

## Arguments

`$ARGUMENTS` = Focus area, task ID, or path to plan/spec file.

When no requirements argument is passed, the skill auto-detects a task ID from
the branch and recent commits (see `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/requirements-detection.md`).

## Workflow

### Step 1: Identify Changed Files and Prepare Directories

Create output dirs before spawning agents — agents cannot create
directories, so their writes would fail.

1. Determine SLUG via Glob on `.claude/plans/*/` (default: `"review"`)
2. Run `mkdir -p ".claude/plans/${SLUG}/reviews" ".claude/plans/${SLUG}/summaries" .claude/reviews`
3. Run `git diff --name-only HEAD~5` and `git diff --name-only main`
4. Save the diff base for pre-existing detection in Step 3b

### Step 1b: Load Plan Context and Prior Reviews

- Read `.claude/plans/${SLUG}/scratchpad.md` for planning decisions and rationale
- Pass relevant decisions to agents as WHY-context (eliminates session archaeology)
- Check `.claude/plans/${SLUG}/reviews/` for prior output; if present, include a
  consolidated summary as "PRIOR FINDINGS" with: "Focus on NEW issues. Mark
  still-present issues as PERSISTENT."

### Step 1c: Detect Requirements Source (skip on `--no-requirements`)

Find a task/spec whose requirements should be cross-checked against the diff.
Priority order (stop at first match): explicit arg → conversation context →
branch regex → commit subjects → latest plan → none. Full table, regexes,
and fetch mapping in `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/requirements-detection.md`.

Fetch the detected source into `.claude/plans/${SLUG}/reviews/.requirements-input.md`
(Linear via `mcp__linear__get_issue`, GitHub via `gh issue view`, file via Read).
Record `REQ_SOURCE` label (e.g. `"Linear ENA-8931"`) for the verifier heading.
On fetch failure, set `SOURCE_STATUS=FETCH_FAILED` and continue — verifier
will emit `NOT AVAILABLE` rather than block the review.

### Step 2: Spawn Review Agents (MANDATORY)

Spawn each agent role once per review. Code analysis belongs to the spawned
agents, not this context — a review that spawns zero agents has failed.

1. If `TaskCreate` is in your tool list (never ToolSearch for it), create a task per agent, set `in_progress`
2. For `/phx:review` or `/phx:review all`: select agents dynamically per the
   selection table in `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/agent-spawning.md`
3. For focused reviews (`test|security|oban|deploy|iron-laws`): spawn only the
   matching specialist from the focused mode table in the same reference
4. **If Step 1c succeeded** (REQ_SOURCE non-empty and `--no-requirements`
   not passed): add `phx:requirements-verifier` to the same
   parallel batch. Pass these prompt inputs: `REQUIREMENTS_TEXT` (content
   of `.requirements-input.md`), `REQUIREMENTS_SOURCE` (REQ_SOURCE label),
   `DIFF_FILES` (git diff --name-only output), `SOURCE_STATUS` (only if
   FETCH_FAILED), `output_file: .claude/plans/{slug}/reviews/requirements.md`
5. Spawn in ONE message with `run_in_background: true`. Do not pass the
   deprecated Agent `mode` parameter; Claude Code 2.1.212+ ignores it and
   subagents inherit the parent session's permission mode
6. Pass an explicit `output_file` per agent (mapping in the reference)
7. Include the CRITICAL prompt block: write by turn ~12, chat body ≤300 words
8. Scope every agent to the diff: pass `git diff --name-only` output with
   "Focus on NEW code. Pre-existing: one-line `{file}:{line} — {brief}`. Do
   NOT deep-analyze unchanged files."
9. **With `--codex`**: add `phx:codex-reviewer` to the same batch
   (prompt template in agent-spawning.md). Missing CLI degrades to SKIPPED.

### Step 3: Collect and Compress Findings

Wait for ALL agents to complete before writing the verdict — a partial
panel gives a misleading review. Count one completion notification per agent spawned; mark any task `completed`.

**Missing file fallback** — after each agent finishes, verify its expected
`output_file` exists. If missing (turn exhaustion, error):

1. Append to `.claude/plans/{slug}/scratchpad.md`:
   `[HH:MM] WARN: {agent} did not write {expected_path} — extracting from message`
2. Parse findings from the agent's return message as fallback
3. Mark the section in the final review with
   `⚠️ EXTRACTED FROM AGENT MESSAGE (see scratchpad)` — never silent

**Verification-runner fallback** — if it times out, run directly:
`mix compile --warnings-as-errors && mix format --check-formatted $(git diff --name-only HEAD~5 | grep '\.exs\?$' | tr '\n' ' ') && mix credo --strict && mix test`

**Context supervision** — for 4+ agents, spawn `phx:context-supervisor`:

```
Prompt: "Compress review agent output.
  input_dir: .claude/plans/{slug}/reviews
  output_dir: .claude/plans/{slug}/summaries
  output_file: review-consolidated.md
  priorit

Excerpt, first 6,000 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

Install

Pinned to the audited commit 492f176

Download folder ↗
git clone https://github.com/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix
git -C claude-elixir-phoenix checkout 492f17636999

The author documents no install command, so this uses the repository directly. Our verdict covers commit 492f17636999 only.

Works in which agents?

What its own text says, not a test

AgentStatusMore
Claude CodeMentioned in its text, not testedSkills for Claude Code · About Claude Code
CodexMentioned in its text, not testedSkills for Codex · About Codex
“Mentioned” means the skill’s text names the agent. We have not run it there.

Audit history

Every audit, every source change

  1. ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

    first audit · source 492f17636999

README badge

For maintainers · shows the latest audit

ModelsAtlas: SAFE BMODELSATLASSAFE · B
[![ModelsAtlas: SAFE B](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/oliver-kriska/review/badge.svg)](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/oliver-kriska/review/)

The badge shows our verdict and grade for this skill, and links back to this page. It changes when the audit does.

Assigns Audit✓SAFE

oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix

Inspect LiveView socket assigns for memory bloat — missing temporary_assigns, unused assigns, unbounded lists needing streams, memory estimates. Use when LiveView memory grows or you need to add temporary_assigns.

★ 567Grade B
Audit✓SAFE

oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix

Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.

★ 567Grade B
Boundaries✓SAFE

oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix

Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.

★ 567Grade B
Brainstorm✓SAFE

oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix

Brainstorm Elixir/Phoenix features — explore ideas, compare approaches, gather requirements. Use when vague idea, not sure how to approach, or want to discuss before plan.

★ 567Grade B
Brief✓SAFE

oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix

Interactive briefing of a plan file — explains reasoning, schema decisions, component choices. Use when developers need to understand a plan before approving.

★ 567Grade B
Call Tracing✓SAFE

oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix

Claude Code plugin for Elixir/Phoenix/LiveView — 26 specialist agents, Iron Laws enforcement, and Tidewave MCP integration. Plan features with parallel research agents, execute with automatic verification, review with…

★ 567Grade B

Add this badge to your README

[![ModelsAtlas: SAFE B](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/oliver-kriska/review/badge.svg)](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/oliver-kriska/review/)

Questions about Review

What does the Review skill do?
Claude Code plugin for Elixir/Phoenix/LiveView — 26 specialist agents, Iron Laws enforcement, and Tidewave MCP integration. Plan features with parallel research agents, execute with automatic verification, review with 4-agent parallel audits, and capture learnings as reusable knowledge.
Is Review 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 Review access on my machine?
The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.
Which assistants does Review work with?
Its documentation mentions claude-code and codex. That is what the text claims, not a compatibility test we ran.
How current is this page?
The grade is for one exact copy of the source (492f17636999), read on 2026-10-18. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.

Sources

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology

Keep going in your AI

Opens with this page as the source. We add nothing else to the prompt.