Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Use when a PR or feature needs both specification and code-quality review
Host: Codex CLI — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex.
Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than /octo:* slash commands.
Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it.
For host tool equivalents, see skills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md.
Execution Contract (MANDATORY - CANNOT SKIP)
This generated Codex skill preserves an enforced workflow contract from the source skill.
PROHIBITED:
Do not summarize, simulate, or skip the referenced workflow command when this skill requires execution.
Do not claim provider output or validation artifacts exist without checking the actual files or command output.
Do not continue silently when a required provider, command, or host capability is unavailable; report the unavailable dependency and use a supported fallback.
Two-Stage Review Pipeline
Separates spec compliance (did you build the right thing?) from code quality
(did you build it right?). Stage 1 must pass before Stage 2 runs.
Stage 1: Spec Compliance
Validates the implementation against the intent contract.
Report failures. Ask user: fix now or proceed anyway?
Any boundary VIOLATED
Report violations. Ask user: fix now or proceed anyway?
If user chooses to fix: Stop review, list specific fixes needed.
If user chooses to proceed: Note the overrides and continue to Stage 2.
Stage 2: Code Quality
Runs stub detection and full code quality review.
Step 1: Stub Detection
Run 5 checks on all changed files:
# Get changed filesif git diff --cached --name-only 2>/dev/null | head -1 > /dev/null; then
changed_files=$(git diff --cached --name-only)
elif git diff --name-only HEAD~1..HEAD 2>/dev/null | head -1 > /dev/null; then
changed_files=$(git diff --name-only HEAD~1..HEAD)
else
changed_files=$(git diff --name-only)
fi# Filter source files
source_files=$(echo"$changed_files" | grep -E "\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs|sh)$" || true)
STUB_ISSUES=0
for file in$source_files; do
[[ -f "$file" ]] || continue# Check 1: TODO/FIXME/PLACEHOLDER markers
todo_count=$(grep -cE "(TODO|FIXME|PLACEHOLDER|XXX)""$file" 2>/dev/null || echo"0")
if [[ "$todo_count" -gt 0 ]]; thenecho"WARNING: $file has $todo_count TODO/FIXME markers"
STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
fi# Check 2: Empty function bodies
empty_fn=$(grep -cE "function.*\{\s*\}|=>\s*\{\s*\}""$file" 2>/dev/null || echo"0")
if [[ "$empty_fn" -gt 0 ]]; thenecho"ERROR: $file has $empty_fn empty functions"
STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
fi# Check 3: Suspicious null/undefined returns
null_ret=$(grep -cE "return (null|undefined);""$file" 2>/dev/null || echo"0")
if [[ "$null_ret" -gt 0 ]]; thenecho"WARNING: $file has $null_ret null/undefined returns — verify intentional"
STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
fi# Check 4: Substantive line count
subst_lines=$(grep -cvE "^\s*(//|/\*|\*|#|import|export|$)""$file" 2>/dev/null || echo"0")
if [[ "$subst_lines" -lt 5 ]]; thenecho"WARNING: $file has only $subst_lines substantive lines"
STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
fi# Check 5: Mock/test data in production code
mock_count=$(grep -cE "const.*(mock|test|dummy|fake).*=""$file" 2>/dev/null || echo"0")
if [[ "$mock_count" -gt 0 ]]; thenecho"WARNING: $file has $mock_count mock/test data references"
STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
fidoneecho"Stub detection complete: $STUB_ISSUES issues found"
Step 2: Multi-LLM Quality Review (RECOMMENDED)
After stub detection, dispatch code to multiple providers for parallel quality review. A Claude-only review pipeline misses what external models catch — Codex excels at logic errors and correctness, Gemini excels at security and edge case analysis. Using both produces higher-confidence findings.
Check provider availability and dispatch in parallel:
# Get the diff for review
DIFF_CONTENT=$(git diff --cached 2>/dev/null || git diff HEAD~1..HEAD 2>/dev/null || git diff)
If external providers are available — dispatch focused reviews through Octopus routing:
providers=()
command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1 && providers+=(codex)
command -v agy >/dev/null 2>&1 && providers+=(agy)
command -v gemini >/dev/null 2>&1 && providers+=(gemini)
for provider in"${providers[@]}"; do
safe_provider=$(printf'%s'"$provider" | tr -c '[:alnum:]_-''_')
"${HOME}/.claude-octopus/plugin/scripts/orchestrate.sh" spawn "$provider" \
"Review this code diff for LOGIC, CORRECTNESS, and SECURITY issues. Focus on:
1. Logic bugs and off-by-one errors
2. Unhandled error paths
3. Race conditions or concurrency issues
4. Incorrect type handling or implicit coercions
5. Security issues at trust boundaries
Report ONLY high-confidence issues. Do NOT flag style preferences.
DIFF:
${DIFF_CONTENT}" > "/tmp/octopus-review-${safe_provider}.md" 2>/dev/null &
done
Wait for external reviews to complete, then synthesize all findings from Claude plus available external providers into a unified quality assessment. If external providers are unavailable, fall back to the Claude-only review below.
Claude (you) performs the full quality review regardless:
Architecture alignment — Does the code follow project patterns?
Error handling — Are errors caught and handled appropriately?
Security — Any OWASP Top 10 issues?
Performance — Any obvious bottlenecks or N+1 queries?
Synthesize external findings: If external providers returned results, merge their findings with yours. Where providers disagree on severity, note the divergence. Where multiple providers flag the same issue, mark it as high-confidence.
Step 3: Present Stage 2 Results
## Stage 2: Code Quality### Stub Detection- Files scanned: N
- Issues found: N
- [Details of each issue]
### Quality Review- Architecture: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Error Handling: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Security: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Performance: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Readability: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Test Coverage: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
### Blocking Issues
[List any issues that must be fixed before merge]
### Recommendations
[Non-blocking suggestions for improvement]
Combined Report
After both stages complete, present the unified report:
## Staged Review — Complete### Stage 1: Spec Compliance- Success Criteria: N/N passed
- Boundaries: N/N respected
- Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]
### Stage 2: Code Quality- Stub Detection: N issues
- Quality Score: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
- Blocking Issues: N
- Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]
### Overall Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]
[If FAIL: list specific items that must be addressed]
[If PASS: ready for merge/ship]
When to Use Each Review Type
Review Type
When
What It Checks
skill-code-review
Quick PR review
Code quality only
skill-staged-review
Major feature completion
Spec compliance + code quality
skill-verification-gate
Before any completion claim
Evidence of passing
Error Handling
Error
Resolution
No intent contract
Skip Stage 1, warn user, run Stage 2 only
No changed files
Report nothing to review
Git not available
Use file listing instead of git diff
Stage 1 failures
Ask user: fix or override
Stage 2 blocking issues
Must fix before merge
The Bottom Line
Staged Review = Spec Compliance (Stage 1) + Code Quality (Stage 2)
Stage 1 gates Stage 2. Both must pass for overall PASS.
Build the right thing, then build it right.
Post Results to PR (v8.44.0)
After the combined report is generated, check for an open PR and post findings.
# Detect open PR on current branch
CURRENT_BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo"")
PR_NUM=""if [[ -n "$CURRENT_BRANCH" && "$CURRENT_BRANCH" != "main" && "$CURRENT_BRANCH" != "master" ]]; thenifcommand -v gh &>/dev/null; then
PR_NUM=$(gh pr list --head"$CURRENT_BRANCH" --json number --jq '.[0].number' 2>/dev/null || echo"")
fifiif [[ -n "$PR_NUM" ]]; then# Post combined report as PR comment
gh pr comment "$PR_NUM" --body "## Staged Review — Claude Octopus
${COMBINED_REPORT}
*Staged review by Claude Octopus (/octo:staged-review)*"echo"Staged review posted to PR #${PR_NUM}"fi
Behavior:
Auto-posts when running inside /octo:deliver or /octo:embrace workflows
Asks user first when invoked standalone via /octo:staged-review
