以 AI 机器人身份加入视频会议,提供语音、虚拟形象与屏幕共享四种模式。
编程
code-review
试用Multi-agent deep review for code PRs in any repo. Use when asked to "deep review this PR," "multi-agent review," "review
它能做什么
User-invokable orchestrator for code-PR review across any repo: Copilot for line-level findings, parallel subagents for the architectural and operational misses line-level review can't see. (Validation evidence and origin story: README.)
技能文档
Code Review — Multi-Agent PR Review
User-invokable orchestrator for code-PR review across any repo: Copilot for line-level findings, parallel subagents for the architectural and operational misses line-level review can't see. (Validation evidence and origin story: README.)
Fallbacks: no gh or not a GitHub repo → review the local diff (git diff ...HEAD) and skip the Copilot lane entirely; no subagent tool → run the review angles sequentially in the main thread. Detect what's available before assuming Copilot access.
Invocation: deliberately model-invocable — "review this PR" phrasing is the trigger. Pushes and issue-creation inside the flow are confirmation-gated.
Step 1: Assess PR Scope
The review target is $ARGUMENTS (a PR number, branch, or URL). If empty, infer it from the conversation or ask.
gh pr view N --json files,additions,deletions,title
Categorize:
| Tier | Examples | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Trivial | Typo, copy edit, single-line deps bump, README polish | Skip multi-agent. Copilot alone is enough. |
| Standard | Component refactor, single-feature bug fix, contained logic change | Copilot + 1 subagent (pick the angle that matches the risk shape) |
| High-stakes | Payment, auth, crypto/wallet, RPC, deployment configs, scale-relevant changes, new external SDK integrations | Copilot + 2 parallel subagents minimum (always include adversarial + operational) |
If trivial → stop reading this skill, just request Copilot review and ship.
Step 2: Spawn Subagents in Parallel
Three angles that empirically work. Pick by risk shape:
- Adversarial — "Try to break it. What's the worst attack?" Finds security holes, abuse vectors, replay/race conditions, malformed-input handling.
- Operational — "What fails in production at scale? Latency, cost, observability, timeouts, env config, retries, cold-start?" Finds the architectural P0s line-level review misses (platform execution limits are the canonical class).
- Reference-comparison — "Does this match the upstream reference impl exactly? Where does it diverge and why?" Use for third-party SDK / spec integration (Phantom deep-link, Stripe, OAuth providers, RPC clients).
Spawn all chosen subagents in a single tool-call batch so they run in parallel. Prompt templates live in patterns/subagent-prompts.md.
Every subagent prompt must specify:
- Repo path (absolute) + branch + commit hash at HEAD
- Files to focus on (paste the changed-files list from Step 1)
- Confidence rating + critical findings first
- Cap report length at ~500 words
Step 3: Request Copilot Review (in parallel with subagents)
gh pr edit N --add-reviewer copilot-pull-request-reviewer
Don't wait for Copilot to start before spawning subagents. They run in parallel.
Step 4: Triage Findings
Three buckets:
Real findings — fix now. Push fix to the PR branch. Pushing changes external state: unless the user already asked you to fix or babysit this PR, confirm before the first push of the session.
Stale re-flags — Copilot will sometimes re-flag findings against unmoved diff lines after fixes ship at HEAD. Always read the file at HEAD before re-fixing. If the fix is already there, drop a one-line reply on the comment ("Fixed at ") and move on. Do not re-fix.
Deferred (filed) — tests, refactors, or work outside scope. File as a GitHub issue (confirm with the user before creating it), link the issue number in the merge commit message, move on. Don't expand the PR.
Step 5: Iteration Cap
Maximum 2 Copilot review rounds. Empirically, by round 3 the signal-to-noise ratio collapses (~50% stale re-flags). Ship after round 2. If subagents flag genuinely new issues after round 2, those are issue-tracker items, not PR-blockers.
Step 6: When NOT to Use This Skill
- Already-merged PRs → use Claude Code's built-in
/security-reviewif you suspect a problem. - Trivial-tier PRs (per Step 1) → just request Copilot, skip the multi-agent overhead.
- PRs where a paid multi-agent service was already run → don't double-spend.
- Skill / prompt / instruction-file repos (where the "code" is markdown) → multi-agent is overkill; a single review pass against the trigger-quality and instruction-quality dimensions is enough.
Empirical Evidence
Validation case (5 rounds on a high-stakes PR):
- Copilot caught ~10 real line-level issues (null checks, error handling, type mismatches).
- Subagents caught what Copilot missed across all 5 rounds:
- P0: Vercel
maxDurationnot set — function would time out under realistic load. Architectural miss invisible at the line level. - Persistent-replay vector in the auth flow.
- Transient poll tolerance (no retry budget on flaky upstream).
- Env-configurable timeout (hardcoded value).
- Structured logging (string-concat logs, unparseable in production).
bodyParsersize limit (DoS surface).
- P0: Vercel
- Round 3+ pattern: Copilot re-flagged the same already-fixed lines. Confirmed the round-2 cap.
Subagents are not redundant with Copilot. They cover a different layer.
Cross-references
patterns/subagent-prompts.md— paste-ready prompt templates for the three angles.
相关技能
在本地磁盘以分类纯 Markdown 文件保存需要长期留存的事实,与智能体内置记忆并存。
诊断生产力系统反复失效的根因,给出最小干预——容量测算、瓶颈定位、可靠的本地记录。
把自然语言描述转为结构化 JSON,并由 mcp-diagram-generator MCP 服务生成 Draw.io、Mermaid 或 Excalidraw 图表文件。
执行 Git 操作(提交、分支、合并、变基、冲突解决与恢复)时强制套用安全规则。
从 AdMapix API 拉取广告创意、应用、榜单和收入预估等数据,原样返回结构化 JSON。
conorbronsdon 的更多技能
浏览全部技能审计并改写文本,去除其中的 AI 生成写作痕迹。
Pre-investment research and deal-memo generation for angel investors. Use when asked to "diligence [company]", "research this startup for an investment", "build a deal memo", or to prep for a founder call. Runs parallel web research with strict citation rules and produces a nine-section memo that separates verified facts from claims. Never outputs an invest/pass recommendation.
Audit an LLM evaluation or benchmark repo for integrity and credibility practices. Use when asked to "audit my benchmark," "is my eval trustworthy," "check my leaderboard for contamination," "review this benchmark's methodology," or "what would a reviewer attack in my eval." Greps the target repo for evidence across seven dimensions (pre-registration, contamination, holdout hygiene, judge validity, statistical honesty, reproducibility, leaderboard exclusions) and emits a scored report with file:line evidence, severity, and concrete fixes.
Researches and maps a guest’s podcast appearance history to identify their last topics, unclaimed angles, and receptiveness for targeted outreach.
Structured session lifecycle for Claude Code — start, checkpoint, end, and daily heartbeat commands that maintain project state across conversations.
Single-source-of-truth drift auditor for documentation-heavy repos. Use when asked to "check for drift," "find copies of this number," "audit the docs for stale facts," or "set up an SSOT manifest." Finds facts hand-copied across files, builds a manifest of canonical locations, and verifies every copy still matches.