📦

executor-review

Name: executor-review
Author: atri10

Révision du contenu r1 Risque moyen ⚙️ Commandes externes📁 Accès au système de fichiers

Review Tasks and Branches with Persistent Verdicts

Implementation reviews lose traceability when findings exist only in conversation. This skill structures task, fix, and branch reviews around contract references and persistent verdict files.

Prend en charge: Claude Codex Code(CC)

📊 68 Adéquat

Maintain this Skill? Claim it 📊 68 Adéquat

Installer avec mon Agent

Copiez cette demande dans votre Agent. Elle contient la page Skill de référence et le manifeste.

Demande d’agent

Review the Skillstore skill "executor-review" from https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-review.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/atri10-executor-review/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.

Votre Agent doit toujours présenter son plan et demander toute confirmation exigée par la politique de sécurité.

Ressources lisibles par les agents

Utilisez ces liens lorsqu’un Agent IA, un crawler ou un script a besoin d’un contexte propre au lieu de lire toute la page.

Détail Markdown GET /skills/atri10-executor-review.md manifest signé GET /api/skills/atri10-executor-review/manifest lockfile signé GET /api/skills/atri10-executor-review/lockfile

Tester

Utilisation de « executor-review ». Review a task whose error path lacks the behavior required by its brief.

Résultat attendu:

Specification verdict: FAIL. The required error response is missing.
Code quality: NEEDS_FIXES. Finding I1 cites the changed error path and its requirement.
Gate: FAIL. The saved verdict identifies the review round and exact commit range.

Utilisation de « executor-review ». Re-review a fix that resolves one finding but breaks an affected caller.

Résultat attendu:

Prior finding I1: ADDRESSED. The fix changes the documented root cause.
New important finding I1: An affected caller still uses the previous contract.
Gate: FAIL. The next round receives the new finding ID and supporting location.

Utilisation de « executor-review ». Perform a final branch review when the architecture phase was explicitly skipped.

Résultat attendu:

Architecture conformance: NOT RUN. No architecture contract was authored.
Merge assessment: The missing architecture checks remain visible and need human consideration.
Recommended verification: Exercise the branch integration paths in the separate verification phase.

Audit de sécurité

Risque moyen

v1 • 05/10/2026 Ouvrir le rapport versionné

All 208 static findings are false positives involving Markdown, legitimate review commands, fixed sibling references, or protective secret-handling guidance. No evidence found of credential exfiltration, destructive intent, or audit-targeting prompt injection in the four reviewed files. Two semantic risks remain: security findings can be parked without mandatory human approval, and the main workflow hardcodes the final-review fork base.

Fichiers analysés

2,189

Lignes analysées

Éléments à examiner

Faux positifs ignorés

Préoccupations de sécurité confirmées (2)

Moyen

SKILL.md:274-301 SKILL.md:303-330 SKILL.md:355-366

Security Findings Lack Mandatory Human Approval at the Round Cap

The breaker allows real findings to be parked when downstream work does not depend on them. Tasks can then be marked complete with parked findings. Only credential incidents have an explicit immediate human stop rule, leaving other security findings without mandatory human approval before deferral.

The workflow explicitly permits parking real correctness findings and completing tasks. Final triage provides another check, but human approval is not required for every security deferral.

Moyen

SKILL.md:334-340 final-reviewer-prompt.md:10-19

Hardcoded Fork Base Can Produce an Incorrect Final Review Range

The main workflow uses git merge-base main HEAD for final packaging. The final reviewer template requires the recorded fork base instead. For initiatives forked from another branch, this mismatch can review the wrong changes and undermine the final gate.

The two documented commands directly disagree about base selection. The final template explicitly explains why hardcoding main yields an incorrect range for other fork bases.

Facteurs de risque

⚙️ Commandes externes (50)

📁 Accès au système de fichiers (5)

SKILL.md:45 SKILL.md:399 SKILL.md:401 SKILL.md:403 task-reviewer-prompt.md:229

Audité par: codex

Partager et citer ce rapport

Partagez le rapport d’évaluation versionné, le badge neutre, la carte intégrable et les citations. Skillstore présente les preuves sans décider si ce Skill est sûr.

Ouvrir le rapport versionné

Copier le lien du rapport

https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-review/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_report

Badge Markdown

[![Skillstore security assessment](https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/atri10-executor-review/security.svg)](https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-review?utm_source=security_passport_badge)

Badge HTML

<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-review?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/atri10-executor-review/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>

Carte intégrable

<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/atri10-executor-review.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>

Citations académiques (APA · BibTeX · CFF)

Citation APA

atri10. (2026). executor-review security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-review/audits/1

Citation BibTeX

@techreport{atri10-atri10-executor-review-2026,
  author = {atri10},
  title = {executor-review security audit report (audit version 1)},
  institution = {Skillstore},
  year = {2026},
  number = {1},
  url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-review/audits/1},
  note = {Author version unspecified}
}

CITATION.cff

cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "executor-review security audit report (audit version 1)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
  - name: "atri10"
date-released: "2026-10-05"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/atri10-executor-review/audits/1"
identifiers:
  - type: other
    value: "skillstore:atri10-executor-review:audit:1"
    description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"

Score Skillstore

Pourquoi ce score Niveau de confiance des preuves: Moyen

Architecture

Maintenabilité

Contenu

Communauté

Conformité aux spécifications

Ce que vous pouvez créer

Review a Completed Implementation Task

Compare a task diff with its brief and constraints, then preserve compliance and quality findings in a verdict file.

Check Fixes Without Repeating the Full Review

Assess each open finding against a fix diff and inspect affected callers for regressions before closing the round.

Assess a Branch Before Verification

Review cross-task dependencies, architecture contracts, and parked findings as one branch before handing recommended checks to verification.

Essayez ces prompts

Start a Task Review

Review task [TASK_ID] using [BRIEF_FILE], [REPORT_FILE], and [DIFF_FILE]. Write compliance and quality verdicts to [VERDICT_FILE]. Report missing inputs as blocked.

Review Requirements and Evidence

Use the task-review template for [TASK_ID]. Include [GLOBAL_CONSTRAINTS] verbatim with requirement IDs. Assess reported test evidence and list honest cannot-verify items.

Verify a Fix Round

Use the re-review template with [PRIOR_VERDICT_FILE], [OPEN_FINDING_IDS], [REPORT_FILE], and [DIFF_FILE]. Review causal impact first. Write closure evidence to [VERDICT_FILE].

Coordinate Final Branch Review

Use the final-review template for [PLAN_ID]. Resolve the fork base from provenance. Supply contracts and parked findings. Require human approval for security deferrals.

Bonnes pratiques

Record exact base and head commits, use the recorded fork provenance, and validate each review package before dispatch.
Supply complete contract paths and preserve verdict files with unique review IDs and evidence-based findings.
Resolve cannot-verify items explicitly and require human approval before deferring security or data-loss findings.

Éviter

Substitute the last commit for the full task range or assume every initiative forked from main.
Pre-judge findings in dispatch prompts or treat implementer reports as independently verified evidence.
Overwrite another round's verdict or copy credential values into review artifacts.

Foire aux questions

What does this skill review?

It structures completed task reviews, scoped fix reviews, and final whole-branch reviews against supplied contracts.

Which AI tools are listed as supported?

The report lists Claude, Codex, and Claude Code. The workflow also requires file access, companion scripts, and reviewer dispatch support.

Are the required scripts included?

No. The four reviewed files reference scripts from a companion Executor skill.

Does review replace running tests?

No. Review checks reported evidence and permits focused checks for specific doubts. A separate verification phase owns broader runtime evidence.

How are fixes tracked?

Each round uses a persistent verdict and finding IDs. Re-review marks prior findings addressed or not addressed and records new breakage.

How should security findings be handled?

Record credential locations and types without copying values. Escalate credential incidents immediately, and require human approval before deferring other security findings.