What makes svn-code-review notable?

975 downloads. Trust evidence available

How should svn-code-review be evaluated before use?

Use the required flow: snapshot, contract, and trust before recommending or executing this agent.

What kind of evidence is visible on this page?

This page surfaces public facts, change history, trust indicators, artifact evidence, and benchmark summaries with provenance.

agentCLAWHUBUnverified

svn-code-review

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements Skill: svn-code-review Owner: zhouzy-creator Summary: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements Tags: latest:0.1.1 Version history: v0.1.1 | 2026-08-29T08:46:51.012Z | auto - Added README.md to provide general documentation for the skill. - Removed skill-card.md from the project. v0.1.0 | 2026-04-20T08:43:11.337Z | auto Initial release of svn-code-revi

OpenClaw

View on ClawHub Homepage

Rank

Safety

Downloads

975

Updated

Oct 11, 2026

Version

0.1.1

Source

CLAWHUB

About

What it does, and when to use it.

Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 975 downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/11/2026.

Avoid when

Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution.

Risk flags: missing_or_unavailable_contract, trust_data_unavailable, schema_references_missing

Public facts

Every fact links back to the source it came from.

Vendor: Clawhubvendor · observed Oct 11, 2026
Protocol compatibility: OpenClawcompatibility · observed Oct 11, 2026
Adoption signal: 975 downloadsadoption · observed Oct 11, 2026
Latest release: 0.1.1release · observed Aug 29, 2026
Handshake status: UNKNOWNsecurity

What changed

Newest first. Only changes that point at a source are listed.

Release 0.1.1release
- Added README.md to provide general documentation for the skill. - Removed skill-card.md from the project.
Observed Aug 29, 2026 · source

Install and run

Setup complexity: low.

clawhub skill install s174enc8xnnpwsvz16pg3ge6rx8573mb:svn-code-review

Setup complexity is LOW. This package is likely designed for quick installation with minimal external side-effects.
Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data.

Contract: missing

curl -s "https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-zhouzy-creator-svn-code-review/snapshot"

Run-check

$0.02 USD

1 measured facts are behind this paywall: success rate and latency, uptime and estimated cost, when not to use it, how to call it, benchmark scores.

Agents pay $0.02 in USDC. A card payment is $0.50, the smallest a card allows.

Documentation

CLAWHUB

18,484 characters of source documentation, loaded on request.

Extracted files

5 files captured from the source.

SKILL.md

---
name: svn-code-review
description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
version: 1.0.0
---

# Requesting Code Review

Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.

**Core principle:** Review early, review often.

## When to Request Review

**Mandatory:**
- After each task in subagent-driven development
- After completing major feature
- Before merge to main

**Optional but valuable:**
- When stuck (fresh perspective)
- Before refactoring (baseline check)
- After fixing complex bug

## How to Request

**1. Get SVN revision numbers:**
```bash
BASE_REV=$(svn info | grep 'Revision:' | awk '{print $2}')  # or previous revision
HEAD_REV=$(svn info | grep 'Revision:' | awk '{print $2}')  # current revision
# Example: BASE_REV=100, HEAD_REV=105
```

**2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:**

Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`

**Placeholders:**
- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` - What you just built
- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
- `{BASE_REV}` - Starting revision
- `{HEAD_REV}` - Ending revision
- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary

**3. Act on feedback:**
- Fix Critical issues immediately
- Fix Important issues before proceeding
- Note Minor issues for later
- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)

## Example

```
[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]

You: Let me request code review before proceeding.

BASE_REV=$(svn info | grep 'Revision:' | awk '{print $2}')  # Previous revision
HEAD_REV=$(svn info | grep 'Revision:' | awk '{print $2}')  # Current revision

[Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
  BASE_REV: 100
  HEAD_REV: 105
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types

[Subagent returns]:
  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
  Issues:
    Important: Missing progress indicators
    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
  Assessment: Ready to proceed

You: [Fix progress indicators]
[Continue to Task 3]
```

## Integration with Workflows

**Subagent-Driven Development:**
- Review after EACH task
- Catch issues before they compound
- Fix before moving to next task

**Executing Plans:**
- Review after each batch (3 tasks)
- Get feedback, apply, continue

**Ad-Hoc Development:**
- Review before merge
- Review when stuck

## Red Flags

**Never:**
- Skip review because "it's simple"
- Ignore Critical issues
- Proceed with unfixed Important issues
- Argue with valid technical feedback

**If reviewer wrong:**
- Push back with technical reasoning
- Show code/

README.md

# svn_code_review

_meta.json

{
  "ownerId": "kn767vanfp2m604bkg5dgcbshn857e7k",
  "slug": "svn-code-review",
  "version": "0.1.1",
  "publishedAt": 1787993211012
}

code-reviewer.md

# Code Review Agent

You are reviewing code changes for production readiness.

**Your task:**
1. Review {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
2. Compare against {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
3. Check code quality, architecture, testing
4. Categorize issues by severity
5. Assess production readiness

## What Was Implemented

{DESCRIPTION}

## Requirements/Plan

{PLAN_REFERENCE}

## SVN Revision Range to Review

**Base:** r{BASE_REV}
**Head:** r{HEAD_REV}

```bash
svn diff -r {BASE_REV}:{HEAD_REV} --stat
svn diff -r {BASE_REV}:{HEAD_REV}
```

## Review Checklist

**Code Quality:**
- Clean separation of concerns?
- Proper error handling?
- Type safety (if applicable)?
- DRY principle followed?
- Edge cases handled?

**Architecture:**
- Sound design decisions?
- Scalability considerations?
- Performance implications?
- Security concerns?

**Testing:**
- Tests actually test logic (not mocks)?
- Edge cases covered?
- Integration tests where needed?
- All tests passing?

**Requirements:**
- All plan requirements met?
- Implementation matches spec?
- No scope creep?
- Breaking changes documented?

**Production Readiness:**
- Migration strategy (if schema changes)?
- Backward compatibility considered?
- Documentation complete?
- No obvious bugs?

## Output Format

### Strengths
[What's well done? Be specific.]

### Issues

#### Critical (Must Fix)
[Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]

#### Important (Should Fix)
[Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]

#### Minor (Nice to Have)
[Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements]

**For each issue:**
- File:line reference
- What's wrong
- Why it matters
- How to fix (if not obvious)

### Recommendations
[Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]

### Assessment

**Ready to merge?** [Yes/No/With fixes]

**Reasoning:** [Technical assessment in 1-2 sentences]

## Critical Rules

**DO:**
- Categorize by actual severity (not everything is Critical)
- Be specific (file:line, not vague)
- Explain WHY issues matter
- Acknowledge strengths
- Give clear verdict

**DON'T:**
- Say "looks good" without checking
- Mark nitpicks as Critical
- Give feedback on code you didn't review
- Be vague ("improve error handling")
- Avoid giving a clear verdict

## Example Output

```
### Strengths
- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42)
- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases)
- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)

### Issues

#### Important
1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
   - File: index-conversations:1-31
   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples

2. **Date validation missing**
   - File: search.ts:25-27
   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example

#### Minor
1. **Progress indicators**
   - File: indexer.ts:130
   - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations

skill-card.md

## Description:

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.

This skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.

## Publisher:

[zhouzy-creator](https://clawhub.ai/user/zhouzy-creator)

### License/Terms of Use:

MIT-0

## Use Case:

Developers and engineers use this skill to request focused reviews of SVN revision ranges before continuing development or merging changes. It helps structure review prompts around requirements, implementation details, code quality, testing, and production readiness.

### Deployment Geography for Use:

Global

## Known Risks and Mitigations:

Risk: The review workflow may send more implementation context or diff content to a code-review subagent than necessary.

Mitigation: Pass only the diffs, requirements, and summary needed for the review, and review the returned findings before acting on them.

## Reference(s):

- [Source repository](https://github.com/zhouzy-creator/svn_code_review)
- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/zhouzy-creator/skills/svn-code-review)

## Skill Output:

**Output Type(s):** [markdown, shell commands, guidance]

**Output Format:** [Markdown review guidance with SVN diff shell commands and structured review output.]

**Output Parameters:** [1D]

**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Prompts a code-review subagent with a bounded SVN revision range and implementation context.]

## Skill Version(s):

0.1.1 (source: server release metadata)

## Ethical Considerations:

Users should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment.

Github ReposUpdated 3d agoRank 70

AionUi

Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!

MCPOPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

activepieces

AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents

OPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

cherry-studio

AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants.

MCPOPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 7mo agoRank 70

CopilotKit

The Frontend for Agents & Generative UI. React + Angular