菜单
Review Devolutions Gateway pull requests and diffs using focused contract, compression, documentation, prose, and skeptical passes. Use whenever Copilot code review is requested or a proposed change needs review.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/Devolutions/devolutions-gateway --skill code-review命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Review Devolutions Gateway changes against authoritative external contracts. Use when a diff may affect HTTP or OpenAPI behavior, WebSocket behavior, relay or tunneling semantics, configuration schemas, or agent and platform protocols.
Perform an evidence-driven, change-averse code review. Use when assessing the correctness, necessity, scope, or design of a proposed change.
Select commit and PR scopes in the Devolutions Gateway repository. Use whenever composing or reviewing a Conventional Commit subject, especially for shared libraries, packaging, tests, documentation, CI, or changes spanning products.
正在显示 SKILL.md
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | code-review |
| description | Review Devolutions Gateway pull requests and diffs using focused contract, compression, documentation, prose, and skeptical passes. Use whenever Copilot code review is requested or a proposed change needs review. |
Inspect the diff, its stated goal, and repository guidance before selecting conditional reviewers:
external-contract-reviewer only when the change may affect HTTP or OpenAPI behavior, WebSocket behavior, relay or tunneling semantics, configuration schemas, or agent and platform protocols.code-compressor for every diff, limiting it to changed code.docs-compressor when documentation, rustdoc, explanatory comments, or instructional prose changes.prose-verifier when hand-maintained prose changes in a format where source line breaks are stylistic.skeptical-reviewer last for every diff.Prefer one rubber-duck sub-agent per applicable skill.
Run the contract, compression, documentation, and prose reviews in parallel.
Give every agent the change goal, review scope, base and head references, relevant repository guidance, and an instruction to invoke its named skill, inspect the diff itself, make no edits, and return only evidence-backed findings.
If sub-agents or skill invocation are unavailable, apply the same skills directly and keep the ordering.
Before the skeptical pass, normalize the initial results. Drop claims that lack a concrete location or mechanism, merge findings with the same root cause, and retain disagreements instead of resolving them by vote. Give the skeptical reviewer the diff plus the retained findings and ask it to independently review the change, verify or reject each supplied concern, and identify material issues the focused passes missed.
Evaluate the final evidence yourself. Report correctness and external-contract findings first, ordered by severity, then optional compression suggestions. Each retained item needs a location, concrete impact, and actionable correction or simplification. Merge duplicates across reviewers and do not inflate a maintainability preference into a defect. Briefly name skipped conditional reviewers and why; if nothing material remains, say that no findings were identified.