agent-ops-code-review-interactive
Interactive code review for agent iterations. Captures comments, tracks resolution status, and integrates with git diffs.
Best use case
agent-ops-code-review-interactive is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Interactive code review for agent iterations. Captures comments, tracks resolution status, and integrates with git diffs.
Teams using agent-ops-code-review-interactive should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/agent-ops-code-review-interactive/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How agent-ops-code-review-interactive Compares
| Feature / Agent | agent-ops-code-review-interactive | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Interactive code review for agent iterations. Captures comments, tracks resolution status, and integrates with git diffs.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
Best AI Skills for Claude
Explore the best AI skills for Claude and Claude Code across coding, research, workflow automation, documentation, and agent operations.
AI Agents for Coding
Browse AI agent skills for coding, debugging, testing, refactoring, code review, and developer workflows across Claude, Cursor, and Codex.
Cursor vs Codex for AI Workflows
Compare Cursor and Codex for AI coding workflows, repository assistance, debugging, refactoring, and reusable developer skills.
SKILL.md Source
# Interactive Code Review Skill ## Purpose Provide structured code review workflow after agent implementation iterations. Allows capturing comments with categories and tracking resolution status. ## Storage Format Reviews are stored in `.agent/reviews/`: ``` .agent/reviews/ ├── YYYY-MM-DD-<short_hash>.md # Review for specific commit ├── active-review.md # Currently open review └── README.md # Review folder documentation ``` ## Review Document Format ```markdown # Code Review: <commit_hash> **Date**: YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM **Author**: [user|agent] **Commit**: <full_hash> **Branch**: <branch_name> ## Summary <brief description of changes reviewed> ## Changed Files | File | Lines Changed | Status | |------|---------------|--------| | src/foo.py | +15 -3 | reviewed | | tests/test_foo.py | +25 | pending | ## Comments ### [CATEGORY] File:Line — Comment Title **File**: `path/to/file.py` **Line**: 42-45 **Category**: fix | question | suggestion | concern | praise **Status**: open | addressed | wont_fix | deferred **Priority**: critical | high | normal | low <comment body> #### Response (if any) <agent or user response> --- ### [SUGGESTION] src/utils.py:78 — Consider extracting helper **File**: `src/utils.py` **Line**: 78 **Category**: suggestion **Status**: addressed **Priority**: normal This block of code appears in multiple places. Consider extracting to a helper function. #### Response Extracted to `_format_output()` helper in commit abc123. --- ## Metrics - Total Comments: X - Open: X - Addressed: X - Won't Fix: X - Deferred: X ``` ## Comment Categories | Category | Icon | Use For | |----------|------|---------| | `fix` | 🔧 | Required changes, bugs, errors | | `question` | ❓ | Clarification needed | | `suggestion` | 💡 | Optional improvements | | `concern` | ⚠️ | Potential issues, risks | | `praise` | 👍 | Good patterns, well done | ## Status Transitions ``` open → addressed (when fix is committed) open → wont_fix (when decided not to fix with reason) open → deferred (when moved to future work) ``` ## CLI Integration (Proposed) ```bash # Start review for current changes aoc review start # Start review for specific commit aoc review start <commit> # View current review aoc review show # Add a comment aoc review comment --file src/foo.py --line 42 --category fix "Fix null check" # Mark comment as addressed aoc review resolve <comment_id> # Mark as won't fix aoc review wontfix <comment_id> --reason "Out of scope" # Defer to issue aoc review defer <comment_id> --issue FEAT-0123 # Complete review aoc review complete # Generate summary aoc review summary ``` ## Workflow Integration ### After Implementation ``` User: Review the changes Agent: 1. Get diff since last commit/baseline 2. Apply agent-ops-critical-review analysis 3. Create review document 4. Present findings organized by category 5. Ask for user feedback User: [Provides comments] Agent: 1. Record comments in review document 2. Address fix/question items 3. Commit changes 4. Update comment statuses 5. Present updated review ``` ### Integration with Validation The validation skill can check for unresolved review comments: ```markdown ## Pre-Commit Checklist - [ ] All tests pass - [ ] No lint errors - [ ] Coverage maintained - [x] Review comments addressed (3 open → requires resolution) ``` ## Review Templates ### Quick Review (for small changes) ```markdown # Quick Review: <hash> **Changes**: <summary> ## Comments - **src/foo.py:23**: [fix] Missing null check - **src/bar.py:45**: [suggestion] Could simplify with list comprehension ## Status: open/complete ``` ### Detailed Review (for PRs/major changes) Full format as shown above. ## Best Practices 1. **Review early, review often** — Don't let comments accumulate 2. **Be specific** — Include file paths and line numbers 3. **Categorize correctly** — Helps prioritize response 4. **Track everything** — All decisions should be captured 5. **Close the loop** — Every comment should reach a final status
Related Skills
jetbrains-marketplace-reviews
Fetch and visualize reviews for any JetBrains Marketplace plugin. Use when (1) analyzing plugin review trends, (2) getting review statistics for a time period, (3) visualizing rating distributions, (4) monitoring user feedback. Triggers on requests like "get JetBrains reviews", "copilot plugin feedback", "JetBrains marketplace reviews", "visualize plugin ratings", "analyze JetBrains plugin reviews".
ethics-reviewer
This skill should be used when the user mentions "dark patterns", "accessibility", "a11y", "privacy", "tracking", "analytics", "notifications", "user data", "GDPR", "consent", "manipulation", "sustainability", "performance budget", or when building user-facing features that collect data, send notifications, display urgency, or gate access. Addresses ethical constraints in software design — manipulation, accessibility, privacy, and sustainability.
error-debugging-multi-agent-review
Use when working with error debugging multi agent review
datahub-connector-pr-review
This skill should be used when the user asks to "review my connector", "check my datahub connector", "review connector code", "audit connector", "review PR", "check code quality", or any request to review/check/audit a DataHub ingestion source. Covers compliance with standards, best practices, testing quality, and merge readiness.
cursor-rules-review
Audit Cursor IDE rules (.mdc files) against quality standards using a 5-gate review process. Validates frontmatter (YAML syntax, required fields, description quality, triggering configuration), glob patterns (specificity, performance, correctness), content quality (focus, organization, examples, cross-references), file length (under 500 lines recommended), and functionality (triggering, cross-references, maintainability). Use when reviewing pull requests with Cursor rule changes, conducting periodic rule quality audits, validating new rules before committing, identifying improvement opportunities, preparing rules for team sharing, or debugging why rules aren't working as expected.
cpm:review
Adversarial review of epic docs and stories. Agents from the party roster examine planning artifacts through their professional lens, challenging assumptions, spotting gaps, and flagging risks. Triggers on "/cpm:review".
contract-review-pro
专业合同审核 Skill,基于《合同审核方法论体系》提供合同类型指引和详细审核服务
codex-reviewer
Use OpenAI's Codex CLI as an independent code reviewer to provide second opinions on code implementations, architectural decisions, code specifications, and pull requests. Trigger when users request code review, second opinion, independent review, architecture validation, or mention Codex review. Provides unbiased analysis using GPT-5-Codex model through the codex exec command for non-interactive reviews.
codex-review
Two-pass adversarial review of design documents and implementation plans using OpenAI Codex CLI. Invokes Codex to review plans section-by-section (pass 1), then holistically (pass 2), feeding critique back for revision. Use when you have a design doc, architecture plan, or implementation plan that should be stress-tested before execution.
code-reviewer
Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code analysis, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and production reliability. Masters static analysis tools, security scanning, and configuration review with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for code quality assurance.
code-review-agent
Comprehensive security and quality code review agent that checks for OWASP vulnerabilities, GDPR compliance, accessibility standards, and code quality issues.
book-review
Review any part of the book using parallel specialist agents