Skills git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance
📦

git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance

Content revision r2 Safe ⚙️ External commands

Improve Pull Requests for Faster Reviews

Large or unclear pull requests slow reviews and hide important risks. This skill creates structured descriptions, checklists, risk assessments, and split recommendations from change context.

Supports: Claude Codex Code(CC)
🥉 78 Bronze

Install with my Agent

Copy this request to your Agent. It includes the canonical Skill page and manifest.

Agent request
Review the Skillstore skill "git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance" from https://skillstore.io/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/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.

Markdown detail GET /skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance.md Signed manifest GET /api/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/manifest Signed lockfile GET /api/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/lockfile

Test it

Using "git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance". A feature adds passwordless sign-in, updates API routes, and includes integration tests.

Expected outcome:

Summary: Adds passwordless sign-in through new API routes. Risk: Medium because authentication behavior changes. Review focus: token expiry, fallback behavior, and integration tests.

Using "git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance". A refactor touches 35 files and 1,400 lines across the API, database, and tests.

Expected outcome:

The change is large. Split database changes first, API refactoring second, and tests last. Keep each pull request independently reviewable.

Using "git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance". Line coverage falls from 88 percent to 84 percent after a dependency update.

Expected outcome:

Coverage decreased by four points. Review uncovered dependency paths and add focused tests before merging.

Security Audit

Safe
v5 • 7/23/2026 Open versioned report

Six static findings are false positives caused by Markdown backticks, path formatting, or a Mermaid code fence. Two Python examples execute Git with an unvalidated branch value split into arguments, creating command-argument injection risk if adopted. No prompt injection, exfiltration intent, or other semantic threat was found.

2
Files scanned
759
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Capability review items (2)

These are real local capabilities that may be expected for this skill, so they require review but are not counted as confirmed malicious behavior.

High
resources/implementation-playbook.md:45
Python subprocess.run
result = subprocess.run(cmd.split(), capture_output=True, text=True)
The example interpolates base_branch into a command string before cmd.split(). An option followed by a ref can inject Git flags and alter command behavior.
High
resources/implementation-playbook.md:62
Python subprocess.run
result = subprocess.run(cmd.split(), capture_output=True, text=True)
The statistics example repeats the unvalidated base_branch interpolation before cmd.split(). Crafted input can become additional Git options instead of one revision argument.

Risk Factors

⚙️ External commands (6)
resources/implementation-playbook.md:45 resources/implementation-playbook.md:62 resources/implementation-playbook.md:191-196 resources/implementation-playbook.md:490-502 SKILL.md:34 SKILL.md:51
Audited by: codex View Audit History →
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.

Open versioned report
Security Assessment

Copy report link

https://skillstore.io/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/audits/5?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_report

Markdown badge

[![Skillstore security assessment](https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/security.svg)](https://skillstore.io/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance?utm_source=security_passport_badge)

HTML badge

<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>

Embed card

<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance.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

sickn33. (2026). git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance security audit report (audit version 5) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/audits/5

BibTeX citation

@techreport{sickn33-sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance-2026, author = {sickn33}, title = {git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance security audit report (audit version 5)}, institution = {Skillstore}, year = {2026}, number = {5}, url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/audits/5}, 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: "git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance security audit report (audit version 5)" version: "unspecified" type: report authors: - name: "sickn33" date-released: "2026-07-23" url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance/audits/5" identifiers: - type: other value: "skillstore:sickn33-git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance:audit:5" description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"

Skillstore Score

Why this score Evidence Confidence: High
55
Architecture
85
Maintainability
87
Content
69
Community
83
Spec Compliance

What You Can Build

Prepare a Feature Pull Request

Turn a feature diff, commit list, and test results into a focused description and reviewer checklist.

Plan Reviews for Large Changes

Assess change size and risk, then identify logical pull request splits and review priorities.

Verify Release Readiness

Compare testing, coverage, dependencies, and documentation before approving a release pull request.

Try These Prompts

Create a Pull Request Description 
Create a clear pull request description for these changes: [summary]. Include purpose, key changes, testing, risks, and a reviewer checklist.
Review a Diff and Commit List 
Review this pull request diff and commit list: [details]. Group changes by category, identify missing context, and propose a focused review checklist.
Split a Large Pull Request 
Analyze this large pull request: [diff and statistics]. Estimate review effort, identify risk factors, and recommend logical splits with dependencies between them.
Build a Complete Review Package 
Compare base and head coverage data, architecture notes, and dependency changes: [details]. Produce a complete review package with evidence-based risks and Mermaid diagrams.

Best Practices

  • Provide the target branch, diff, commit intent, test results, and repository conventions before requesting analysis.
  • Verify generated metrics and risk claims against actual Git, coverage, and continuous integration results.
  • Keep descriptions factual and link each reviewer concern to a specific change or test.

Avoid

  • Do not publish generated coverage numbers or risk scores without checking their sources.
  • Do not combine unrelated changes only to avoid creating multiple pull requests.
  • Do not run branch-changing or push commands without confirming the repository state and user intent.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this skill modify my repository?
The core output is guidance and documentation. Some playbook examples use Git commands, so execution requires explicit approval and repository checks.
What inputs produce the best result?
Provide the target branch, diff, commit messages, test results, coverage data, issue context, and repository review rules.
Can it generate different pull request formats?
Yes. The playbook includes structures for features, bug fixes, refactors, checklists, risk reports, and review responses.
Can it measure test coverage?
It can format and compare supplied coverage data. It cannot create reliable coverage results without running the project test tooling.
Can it create architecture diagrams?
Yes. It can draft Mermaid diagrams when the provided context clearly describes architectural changes.
Does it replace human code review?
No. Generated descriptions, checks, and risk assessments require validation by reviewers who understand the codebase and delivery requirements.

Developer Details

Author

sickn33

License

MIT

Skillstore revision

r2

Version notice

The author did not declare a version.

Repository

https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/tree/main/skills/git-pr-workflows-pr-enhance

Ref

88a8e9a07f4c54ab105c1c41b6267c287146b07b

Maintenance freshness

7/26/2026

Usage

8 downloads · 105 views

File structure

📁 resources/

📄 implementation-playbook.md

📄 SKILL.md

More from sickn33

View all

Related Skills

View all