소스 정보
- 저장소
- RunnerQuan/SAFE-Agent
- 최근 소스 활동
- 2026년 3월 30일 04:33
- 감지된 SKILL.md 언어
- 영어
- 스타
- 0
- 포크
- 0
설치 방법
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
소스 파일 검토
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
메뉴
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/RunnerQuan/SAFE-Agent --skill review명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
Find doctors with Healthgrades - search providers, read reviews, and check credentials
Presentation creation, editing, and analysis. When Claude needs to work with presentations (.pptx files) for: (1) Creating new presentations, (2) Modifying or editing content, (3) Working with layouts, (4) Adding comments or speaker notes, or any other presentation tasks.
基于RFM模型和回归算法的客户生命周期价值(LTV)预测分析工具,支持电商和零售业务的客户价值预测。使用时需要客户交易数据、订单历史或消费记录,自动进行RFM特征工程、回归建模和价值预测。
SOC 직업 분류 기준
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | review |
| description | Multi-agent code analysis covering security, performance, quality, and architecture |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
I'll review your code for potential issues.
Token Optimization:
Caching Behavior:
.claude/cache/review/last-review.json/security-scan, /predict-issues skillsUsage:
review - Review changed files only (default, 2,000-4,000 tokens)review --security - Security focus only (3,000-5,000 tokens)review --performance - Performance focus only (3,000-5,000 tokens)review --full - Complete codebase review (10,000-20,000 tokens)Optimization: Determine Review Scope
# Check for focus area flags (saves 75% by running only requested sub-agents)
FOCUS_SECURITY=false
FOCUS_PERFORMANCE=false
FOCUS_QUALITY=false
FOCUS_ARCHITECTURE=false
FULL_REVIEW=false
# Parse arguments (e.g., --security, --full)
for arg in "$@"; do
case $arg in
--security) FOCUS_SECURITY=true ;;
--performance) FOCUS_PERFORMANCE=true ;;
--quality) FOCUS_QUALITY=true ;;
--architecture) FOCUS_ARCHITECTURE=true ;;
--full) FULL_REVIEW=true ;;
esac
done
# Default to changed files only (90% token savings)
if [ "$FULL_REVIEW" = false ]; then
FILES_TO_REVIEW=$(git diff --name-only HEAD)
if [ -z "$FILES_TO_REVIEW" ]; then
echo "✓ No changed files to review"
exit 0 # Early exit, saves 95% tokens
fi
echo "Reviewing changed files: $(echo "$FILES_TO_REVIEW" | wc -l) files"
else
echo "Reviewing entire codebase (--full flag)"
fi
Optimization: Check Cached Review Results
# Check cache for unchanged files (70% savings on re-reviews)
CACHE_FILE=".claude/cache/review/last-review.json"
if [ -f "$CACHE_FILE" ] && [ "$FULL_REVIEW" = false ]; then
# Compare file checksums to detect changes
CHANGED=$(echo "$FILES_TO_REVIEW" | while read file; do
if [ -f "$file" ]; then
CURRENT_CHECKSUM=$(md5sum "$file" 2>/dev/null | cut -d' ' -f1)
CACHED_CHECKSUM=$(jq -r ".files.\"$file\".checksum" "$CACHE_FILE" 2>/dev/null)
if [ "$CURRENT_CHECKSUM" != "$CACHED_CHECKSUM" ]; then
echo "$file"
fi
fi
done)
if [ -z "$CHANGED" ]; then
echo "✓ No file changes since last review"
jq '.issues' "$CACHE_FILE"
exit 0
Let me create a checkpoint before detailed analysis:
git add -A
git commit -m "Pre-review checkpoint" || echo "No changes to commit"
I'll use specialized sub-agents for comprehensive analysis (optimized with focus areas):
Sub-Agent Selection (saves 75% by running only what's needed):
# Default: Run all agents on changed files only
# With flags: Run specific agents only
if [ "$FOCUS_SECURITY" = true ] || [ "$FULL_REVIEW" = true ]; then
# Security sub-agent: Credential exposure, input validation, vulnerabilities
echo "Running security analysis..."
fi
if [ "$FOCUS_PERFORMANCE" = true ] || [ "$FULL_REVIEW" = true ]; then
# Performance sub-agent: Bottlenecks, memory issues, optimization
echo "Running performance analysis..."
fi
if [ "$FOCUS_QUALITY" = true ] || [ "$FULL_REVIEW" = true ]; then
# Quality sub-agent: Code complexity, maintainability, best practices
echo "Running quality analysis..."
fi
if [ "$FOCUS_ARCHITECTURE" = true ] || [ "$FULL_REVIEW" = true ]; then
# Architecture sub-agent: Layer separation, dependency direction, patterns
echo "Running architecture analysis..."
Optimization: Grep-Before-Read Pattern (saves 85% in sub-agents)
Each sub-agent will use Grep to identify problematic patterns before reading full files:
# Security Agent: Grep for security patterns first (100 tokens vs 5,000+)
SECURITY_ISSUES=$(Grep pattern="password|secret|api[_-]?key|token" files="$FILES_TO_REVIEW" head_limit=20)
# Performance Agent: Grep for performance anti-patterns
PERF_ISSUES=$(Grep pattern="for.*for|O\(n\^2\)|sleep|setTimeout.*loop" files="$FILES_TO_REVIEW" head_limit=20)
# Only read files that matched patterns (saves 85% tokens)
I'll examine files using optimized Grep-then-Read analysis:
When I find multiple issues, I'll create a todo list to address them systematically.
For each issue, I'll use progressive disclosure (saves 60% tokens):
Critical Issues (show full details):
High Priority (summarize):
Medium/Low Priority (count only):
Save Review Results to Cache (70% savings on re-reviews)
# Cache review results with file checksums
mkdir -p .claude/cache/review
cat > .claude/cache/review/last-review.json <<EOF
{
"timestamp": "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)",
"files": {
$(echo "$FILES_TO_REVIEW" | while read file; do
CHECKSUM=$(md5sum "$file" 2>/dev/null | cut -d' ' -f1)
echo "\"$file\": {\"checksum\": \"$CHECKSUM\"}"
done | paste -sd,)
},
"issues": {
"critical": 0,
"high": 0,
"medium": 0,
"low": 0
}
}
EOF
After review, I'll ask: "Create GitHub issues for critical findings?"
Important: I will NEVER:
This focuses on real problems that impact your application's reliability and maintainability.
This skill implements aggressive token optimization achieving 60-80% token reduction compared to naive implementation:
Token Budget:
1. Git Diff Scope Limiting (saves 90%)
# Default: Review only changed files
FILES_TO_REVIEW=$(git diff --name-only HEAD)
if [ -z "$FILES_TO_REVIEW" ]; then
echo "✓ No changed files to review"
exit 0 # Exit early, saves ~18,000 tokens
fi
# Count files (set reasonable limit)
FILE_COUNT=$(echo "$FILES_TO_REVIEW" | wc -l)
if [ $FILE_COUNT -gt 50 ]; then
echo "⚠️ $FILE_COUNT files changed (showing first 50)"
FILES_TO_REVIEW=$(echo "$FILES_TO_REVIEW" | head -50)
fi
# vs. Full codebase scan: find . -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.js"
# Savings: 100 tokens vs 10,000+ tokens
2. Focus Area Flags (saves 75%)
# Run only requested analysis agents
if [ "$FOCUS_SECURITY" = true ]; then
# Run security agent only (2,500 tokens)
# Skip performance, quality, architecture agents
elif [ "$FOCUS_PERFORMANCE" = true ]; then
# Run performance agent only (2,500 tokens)
elif [ -z "$FOCUS_*" ]; then
# Run all agents (8,000 tokens total)
fi
# Savings: 75% when using focus flags
3. Grep-Before-Read in Sub-Agents (saves 85%)
# Security Agent Example
# Instead of reading all files, grep for patterns first
# Grep for security issues (200 tokens)
SECURITY_PATTERNS=$(grep -rn "password\|secret\|api_key\|token" $FILES_TO_REVIEW | head -20)
if [ -z "$SECURITY_PATTERNS" ]; then
echo "✓ No security issues detected"
exit 0 # Skip file reads, saves 4,500 tokens
fi
# Only read files with matches (500 tokens vs 5,000+)
FILES_WITH_ISSUES=$(echo "$SECURITY_PATTERNS" | cut -d: -f1 | sort -u)
# Read only these files for context
# Total: 700 tokens vs 5,000+ tokens
4. Review Result Caching (saves 70% on re-reviews)
CACHE_FILE=".claude/cache/review/last-review.json"
# Compare file checksums
for file in $FILES_TO_REVIEW; do
CURRENT=$(md5sum "$file" | cut -d' ' -f1)
CACHED=$(jq -r ".files.\"$file\".checksum" "$CACHE_FILE")
if [ "$CURRENT" = "$CACHED" ]; then
# File unchanged, use cached results
continue # Skip analysis, saves 500 tokens per file
fi
done
# Only analyze changed files since last review
Cache Contents:
Cache Invalidation:
--no-cache flag--full review5. Progressive Disclosure (saves 60-85%)
# Level 1: Critical issues only (default) - 2,000 tokens
echo "Found 2 critical issues:"
echo " - SQL injection in UserController.ts:45"
echo " - Hardcoded API key in config.ts:12"
# Level 2: Critical + High (--verbose flag) - 4,000 tokens
echo "Also found 5 high-priority issues:"
echo " - Memory leak in EventEmitter..."
# Level 3: All issues (--verbose --all flags) - 8,000 tokens
echo "Also found 12 medium and 8 low priority issues..."
# Most users only need Level 1 (saves 60-85%)
6. Multi-Agent Parallel Execution (no serial overhead)
# Run sub-agents in parallel (when all needed)
{
security_agent &
performance_agent &
quality_agent &
architecture_agent &
}
wait
# Collect results from each agent
# No serial token overhead (each agent is optimized independently)
| Operation | Before | After | Savings | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| File discovery | 5,000 | 100 | 98% | Git diff vs full scan |
| Security analysis | 4,500 | 700 | 84% | Grep-before-Read |
| Performance analysis | 4,000 | 600 | 85% | Pattern detection |
| Quality analysis | 3,500 | 500 | 86% | Complexity grep |
| Architecture analysis | 3,000 | 400 | 87% | Dependency grep |
| Result formatting | 500 | 200 | 60% | Progressive disclosure |
| Total (All Agents) | 20,500 | 2,500 | 88% | Combined optimizations |
| Total (Single Focus) | 10,000 | 1,500 | 85% | Focus flag + optimizations |
First Run (No Cache, Changed Files):
Subsequent Runs (Cache Hit, No Changes):
Focus Area Review:
Full Codebase Review (--full flag):
Large Projects (500+ files):
.claude/cache/review/
├── last-review.json # Review results with checksums
│ ├── timestamp
│ ├── files # {file: {checksum, issues}}
│ ├── issues # {critical, high, medium, low}
│ └── agent_results # Per-agent findings
├── security-patterns.json # Security patterns cache (7d TTL)
├── performance-baselines.json # Performance baselines (30d TTL)
└── quality-metrics.json # Code quality trends (30d TTL)
Efficient patterns:
# Review changed files only (default)
/review # 2,000-4,000 tokens
# Security-focused review
/review --security # 1,500-2,500 tokens
# Performance-focused review
/review --performance # 1,500-2,500 tokens
# Multiple focus areas
/review --security --performance # 3,000-5,000 tokens
# Full codebase review
/review --full # 8,000-15,000 tokens
# Verbose output (all issues)
/review --verbose --all # +2,000 tokens
# Bypass cache
/review --no-cache # Force fresh analysis
Flags:
--security: Security analysis only--performance: Performance analysis only--quality: Code quality analysis only--architecture: Architecture analysis only--full: Review entire codebase--verbose: Show high-priority issues--all: Show all issues (including low priority)--no-cache: Bypass result cacheSecurity Agent (85% reduction):
# Grep patterns (200 tokens)
grep -rn "password\|secret\|apikey\|token" --include="*.ts" | head -20
# Only read matched files (500 tokens vs 4,500)
# Total: 700 tokens vs 4,500 tokens
Performance Agent (85% reduction):
# Grep for anti-patterns (150 tokens)
grep -rn "for.*for\|O(n\^2)\|sleep.*loop" --include="*.ts" | head -20
# Grep for large iterations (100 tokens)
grep -rn "while.*true\|forEach.*forEach" --include="*.ts" | head -20
# Total: 600 tokens vs 4,000 tokens
Quality Agent (86% reduction):
# Use complexity tools via bash (200 tokens)
npx eslint $FILES_TO_REVIEW --format json | jq '.[] | select(.errorCount > 0)'
# Total: 500 tokens vs 3,500 tokens
Architecture Agent (87% reduction):
# Grep for dependency violations (150 tokens)
grep -rn "import.*from.*\.\./" --include="*.ts" | head -20
# Analyze layer violations (150 tokens)
grep -rn "ui.*import.*database\|controller.*import.*ui" | head -20
# Total: 400 tokens vs 3,000 tokens
Optimized review workflow:
/review # Multi-agent analysis (2,500 tokens)
# If critical issues:
/security-scan # Detailed security scan (1,500 tokens)
/create-todos # Track issues (400 tokens)
/fix-todos # Fix issues (variable)
/review --security # Verify fixes (1,500 tokens)
/commit # Commit fixes (400 tokens)
# Total: ~6,800 tokens (vs ~35,000 unoptimized)
Cache shared with:
/security-scan - Security patterns and vulnerabilities/predict-issues - Issue patterns and history/code-review-checklist - Review criteria and resultsBenefit: Reviewing with /review caches patterns for other skills (70% savings)
Tested on:
Success criteria: