gjalla-code-review
Review Code Changes Before Merge
Code changes can hide correctness, security, and maintainability issues before merge. This skill reviews diffs from relevant perspectives and returns prioritized, location-specific fixes.
Install with my Agent
Copy this request to your Agent. It includes the canonical Skill page and manifest.
Review the Skillstore skill "gjalla-code-review" from https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-code-review.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/gjalla-gjalla-code-review/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.Your Agent should still show its plan and request any confirmation required by the security policy.
Agent-readable resources
Use these links when an AI agent, crawler, or script needs clean context instead of reading the full page.
Test it
Using "gjalla-code-review". Review a change that adds payment retry behavior after request timeouts.
Expected outcome:
Blocking — [changed file]:[line]. The retry path can submit a payment twice after a timeout. Add idempotency and test timeout recovery. Not verified: integration tests.
Using "gjalla-code-review". Review a pull request that introduces a shared cache for user preferences.
Expected outcome:
Should fix — [changed file]:[line]. The cache key does not include the user identifier, so preferences can cross accounts. Scope keys per user and add isolation tests.
Using "gjalla-code-review". Review a focused documentation-only naming correction.
Expected outcome:
No Blocking or Should fix findings. The updated term is consistent throughout the provided diff. Not verified: references outside the supplied files.
Security Audit
SafeThe only static finding is a false positive: line 23 uses Markdown backticks to format `file:line` in prose. SKILL.md contains review guidance only, with no executable code, command invocation, or semantic threat identified.
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (1)
Share & cite this report
Share the versioned assessment report, neutral badge, embed card, and citations. Skillstore reports evidence without deciding whether this Skill is safe.
Copy report link
https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-code-review/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_reportMarkdown badge
[](https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-code-review?utm_source=security_passport_badge)HTML badge
<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-code-review?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/gjalla-gjalla-code-review/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>Embed card
<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/gjalla-gjalla-code-review.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>Academic citations (APA · BibTeX · CFF)
APA citation
gjalla. (2026). gjalla-code-review security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-code-review/audits/1BibTeX citation
@techreport{gjalla-gjalla-gjalla-code-review-2026,
author = {gjalla},
title = {gjalla-code-review security audit report (audit version 1)},
institution = {Skillstore},
year = {2026},
number = {1},
url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-code-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: "gjalla-code-review security audit report (audit version 1)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
- name: "gjalla"
date-released: "2026-08-11"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-code-review/audits/1"
identifiers:
- type: other
value: "skillstore:gjalla-gjalla-code-review:audit:1"
description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"
Skillstore Score
Why this score Evidence Confidence: MediumWhat You Can Build
Review Before Opening a Pull Request
Find blocking defects and missing tests before requesting review from teammates.
Assess Merge Readiness
Prioritize actionable findings and decide whether a pull request is ready to merge.
Evaluate Product and Quality Impact
Examine user impact, acceptance criteria, failure modes, and maintainability across a proposed change.
Try These Prompts
Review this diff for merge readiness. Group findings as Blocking, Should fix, or Nit. Include location, problem, fix, and verification limits.
Review this pull request against its description and acceptance criteria. Focus on correctness, edge cases, tests, and maintainability. Prioritize actionable findings with locations.
Review this change from engineering, product, quality, and security perspectives where relevant. Identify second-order effects and missing handling. Explain merge risk and fixes.
Perform an adversarial ship-readiness review of this diff and linked specification. Trace data access, failure modes, compatibility, and user impact. Report only defensible findings.
Best Practices
- Provide the full diff, change intent, acceptance criteria, and relevant specifications.
- Include test results and known constraints so findings can distinguish verified behavior from assumptions.
- Resolve Blocking findings first, then evaluate Should fix items within the release context.
Avoid
- Do not request approval from a partial diff that omits related changes.
- Do not treat automated review as a substitute for tests or accountable human review.
- Do not dismiss findings without checking the cited location, impact, and suggested fix.