Skip to content
FunCoding

Search

Search docs, agents, posts, Skills and MCP servers

open-code-review-delegate

Delegation mode for open-code-review (OCR). Instead of OCR calling an LLM endpoint, this skill instructs the host agent to perform the code review itself, using OCR only for deterministic engineering: file selection and rule resolution. Use when the host agent should drive the review with its own LLM capabilities.

代码质量与审查44kplugins/open-code-review/skills/open-code-review-delegate/SKILL.md

Install

Send this to Claude Code, Codex or Cursor. The agent reviews the Skill for safety first and installs it after you confirm.

读取 https://funcoding.ai/skills/alibaba/open-code-review/plugins-open-code-review-skills-open-code-review-delegate/install.md ,按里面的步骤帮我安装这个 Skill。

SKILL.md

Open Code Review — Delegation Mode

This Codex plugin skill intentionally mirrors the canonical skill at skills/open-code-review-delegate/SKILL.md. Keep both files synchronized when updating OCR delegation instructions; a symlink is avoided because plugin installs may only materialize the plugin subtree.

A skill for performing AI code review where OCR provides deterministic engineering (file filtering, rule resolution) and the host agent performs the actual review using its own intelligence and tools.

Workflow

Step 1: Preview — Determine What to Review

ocr delegate preview --format json [--from <ref> --to <ref>] [--commit <hash>] [--exclude <patterns>]

This outputs:

  • mode (workspace / range / commit)
  • from / to / commit / merge_base — ref metadata for constructing git commands
  • Reviewable file list — paths, status, insertions/deletions
  • Excluded files — with exclusion reason

Common invocations:

ScenarioCommand
Workspace changesocr delegate preview
Branch comparisonocr delegate preview --from main --to feature
Single commitocr delegate preview -c abc123

Step 2: Get Rules for Files

ocr delegate rule --format json <path1> <path2> ...

Pass the reviewable file paths from Step 1. Output is grouped by rule content — files sharing the same rule appear under one group, avoiding repetition.

Step 3: Get Diffs

Use git directly based on the mode/ref info from Step 1:

Range mode (merge_base provided in preview output):

git diff <merge_base>..<to> -- <path>

Commit mode:

git show <commit> -- <path>

Workspace mode:

# Tracked files
git diff HEAD -- <path>
# New untracked files — read directly (entire file is new code)
cat <path>

Step 4: Review Each File

Create a checklist containing every reviewable_files entry. For each reviewable file:

Use (path, status) as the checklist identity. Workspace mode can report the same path twice when a staged deletion is followed by an untracked recreation.

  1. Get its diff (Step 3)
  2. Consult its Rule Group (from Step 2) for the review checklist
  3. Conduct a thorough review, using appropriate context tools as needed
  4. Mark the file reviewed, or skipped with a concrete reason

For large changes, review in bounded batches grouped by shared rules and diff size. Do not stop after finding the first high-severity issue.

Step 5: Format Output

Each comment must follow this structure:

FieldTypeRequiredDescription
pathstringyesRelative file path
contentstringyesReview comment describing the issue
start_lineintegernoStart line in the new file
end_lineintegernoEnd line in the new file
categoryenumnobug, security, performance, maintainability, test, style, documentation, other
severityenumnocritical, high, medium, low

Step 6: Classify and Report

Before reporting, verify that every previewed file is accounted for. Include total_files, reviewed_files, skipped_files, and coverage_rate in the summary. A skipped file must include its reason.

Group findings by severity:

  • Critical/High: Bugs, security issues, data loss risks — always report
  • Medium: Performance concerns, error handling gaps, maintainability issues — report with context
  • Low: Style nits, minor suggestions — report only if clearly valuable

Discard likely false positives silently.

Step 7: Fix (Optional)

If the user requested "review and fix":

  • Apply High/Critical fixes directly
  • Describe Medium fixes that require manual intervention
  • Skip Low-priority items unless trivial

Sub-commands Reference

CommandPurpose
ocr delegate previewWhich files to review + mode/ref metadata
ocr delegate rule <path...>Review rules grouped by content

Shared Flags

FlagDescription
--from <ref>Source ref for range mode
--to <ref>Target ref for range mode
-c, --commit <hash>Single commit mode
--repo <path>Repository root (default: cwd)
--rule <path>Custom rule.json path
--exclude <patterns>Comma-separated exclude patterns
-b, --background <text>Business context
-B, --background-file <path>Business context from Markdown file (takes precedence over -b)
-f, --format <text|json>Output format; use json for agent integrations

Gotchas

  • No LLM needed on OCR side — delegation mode never calls an LLM. All intelligence comes from the host agent.
  • Rules are grouped — Files sharing the same rule are grouped together in the output. You can pass any number of paths per call; for large changes, fetch rules per-batch as you review.
  • Working directory matters — ocr delegate operates on the Git repo at the current directory. Use --repo /path to override.
  • Untracked files in workspace mode — preview includes untracked files. For these, read the file directly instead of using git diff.
  • Background context — pass --background to preview when you have requirement context; it appears in the output for your reference during review.
  • Coverage is mandatory — every reviewable_files entry must end as reviewed or explicitly skipped; do not silently omit files.

Recovering Oversized Background Context

--background-file has two independent limits. The raw file must not exceed 1 MiB, and the sanitized content must not exceed 8000 characters. Either condition aborts the command. When the command reports either limit:

  1. Do not silently truncate the source file.
  2. Summarize the original material while preserving its requirements, constraints, acceptance criteria, and other review-critical details.
  3. Retry the affected command by passing the summary as one shell-safe argument (for example, use a quoted/escaped argument produced by the host shell, or write it to a new size-bounded file and pass that file). Do not place untrusted summary text directly in a double-quoted shell template; $(), backticks, quotes, and variable references can still be evaluated. Omit the original --background-file so the CLI does not reload the same oversized file and fail again.
  4. If a faithful summary is not possible, omit the OCR background entirely and read the original material directly during the review.

Troubleshooting CLI Version Compatibility

The --format flag is available in ocr v1.9.0 and later. The Skill and the installed CLI can be updated independently. If a requested preview or rule command with --format json fails specifically with unknown flag: --format, rerun it without the flag and use text output for the rest of the delegation run. Preserve the explicit mode, ref, file, and rule information from that output; do not parse text output as JSON or invent missing schema fields. Do not retry without the flag for any other error; report it and stop the affected workflow.

The host-agent Skill may consume the equivalent text output to complete its review checklist. Programmatic integrations that require schema_version or other JSON fields must require a JSON-capable CLI instead: verify with ocr --version and upgrade when necessary:

npm install -g @alibaba-group/open-code-review

Similar Skills

claude-api
Official
anthropics/skills180k

claude-api

Reference for the Claude API / Anthropic SDK — model ids, pricing, params, streaming, tool use, MCP, agents, caching, token counting, model migration. TRIGGER — read BEFORE opening the target file; don't skip because it "looks like a one-liner" — whenever: the prompt names Claude/Anthropic in any form (Claude, Anthropic, Fable, Opus, Sonnet, Haiku, `anthropic`, `@anthropic-ai`, `claude-*`, `us.anthropic.*`, `[1m]`); the user asks about an LLM (pricing/model choice/limits/caching) — never answer from memory; OR the task is LLM-shaped with provider unstated (agent/MCP/tool-definition/multi-agent/RAG/LLM-judge/computer-use; generate/summarize/extract/classify/rewrite/converse over NL; debugging refusals/cutoffs/streaming/tool-calls/tokens). SKIP only when another provider is being worked on (overrides all triggers): OpenAI/GPT/Gemini/Llama/Mistral/Cohere/Ollama named in the query; OR `grep -rE 'openai|langchain_openai|google.generativeai|genai|mistralai|cohere|ollama'` over the project hits (run this grep FIRST if no provider named — don't Read the file).

Code quality & review

ponytail
DietrichGebert/ponytail157k

ponytail

Lazy senior dev mode for any coding task (write, refactor, fix, review): YAGNI, stdlib first, no unrequested abstractions. Not for non-coding requests.

Code quality & review

ponytail-review
DietrichGebert/ponytail157k

ponytail-review

Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we delete", "is this over-engineered", "simplify review", or invokes /ponytail-review. Complements correctness-focused review, this one only hunts complexity.

Code quality & review

documentation-and-adrs
addyosmani/agent-skills102k

documentation-and-adrs

Records decisions and documentation. Use when you need to document an architecture decision (ADR) or the reasoning behind a design choice, when changing public APIs, shipping features, or when you need to record context that future engineers and agents will need to understand the codebase.

Code quality & review

code-simplification
addyosmani/agent-skills102k

code-simplification

Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.

Code quality & review

code-review-and-quality
addyosmani/agent-skills102k

code-review-and-quality

Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch. Use when asked to review a diff or a pull request, even when the diff is pasted inline.

Code quality & review