mcpbeat

Ca Review

arbiterforge/codearbiter-ca-review

Review a diff with the reviewer fleet, funneled to one triaged verdict. Targets the current working diff, a path, or an inbound GitHub PR.

1k tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
1
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
138
stars on the repo
on the repository, not the skill itself

Install

one command, takes just this skill from the repository
npx skills add https://github.com/arbiterForge/codeArbiter --skill ca-review

The instruction itself

5 sections, as written by the author

/ca-review — diff review

Read-only review of a change. Routes to dispatching-parallel-agents: dispatches the reviewer fleet by path matrix, dedupes, then funnels through finding-triagecheckpoint-aggregator to a single verdict. No code is modified.

The change under review does not have to be yours. /ca-review #123 reviews an inbound pull request through the same fleet, the same matrix, and the same triage. That is the point of issue #80: a tool that only reviews the diff you just wrote is a linter for authors, not a gate for a team, and reviewing code you did NOT write is where a governance gate earns its keep.

It is an ARGUMENT, not a second command. The scope resolver already took one, the fleet is scope-agnostic, and every phase downstream operates on a diff regardless of where it came from — so a /ca-review-pr would be a whole public surface (catalog, three host projections, README counts, sidebar) whose only distinguishing feature is where the diff was fetched from.

Flow

  • Resolve scope from $ARGUMENTS:
  • empty → the current working diff (unchanged default).
  • a path → that path (unchanged).
  • #<number>, a bare number, or a GitHub PR URL → an INBOUND PR. Fetch its diff with

gh pr diff <number> and review that. If gh is missing or unauthenticated, STOP and say so —

do NOT silently fall back to the working diff, which would report a verdict on the wrong change

under the PR's name.

For a PR target, resolve the diff ONCE and review that text. Do not re-fetch per reviewer: the

fleet runs in parallel, and a PR updated mid-review would otherwise have different reviewers

reading different code and a triage that reconciles findings from two versions.

  • Build the unit list by path matrix; each matched reviewer is one read-only unit:

| Reviewer | Dispatched when scope touches |

|---|---|

| security-reviewer | auth, middleware, secrets, deploy/CI, any security-sensitive path |

| auth-crypto-reviewer | authn, crypto, key handling, secrets |

| dependency-reviewer | package.json, lockfiles, base images, dependency manifests |

| migration-reviewer | DB migration file add/modify |

| coverage-auditor | any source change (test coverage vs. obligations) |

| architecture-drift-reviewer | code that may diverge from accepted ADRs in .codearbiter/decisions/ |

  • Route to dispatching-parallel-agents with that unit list (read-only batch — no collision check).

It dedupes overlapping findings, then funnels through finding-triage (severity + inline

[NEEDS-TRIAGE] on out-of-scope items) → checkpoint-aggregator (single verdict).

  • Surface the aggregated verdict: findings by severity, file:line, remediation, and the applicable

control from <project-root>/.codearbiter/security-controls.md for security findings.

  • For a PR target, posting the verdict is a separate, confirmed step. Report locally first; post only on explicit instruction, with gh pr review <number> --comment --body-file <file>. A review comment on someone else's PR is outward-facing and effectively public the moment it lands — it notifies subscribers and cannot be un-sent. Never --request-changes or --approve from here: those carry merge authority, and this command produces a finding list, not a maintainer's decision.

Severity

  • CRITICAL — exploitable vuln, secret exposure, banned primitive, data-integrity breach.
  • HIGH — significant compliance gap or unsafe pattern.
  • MEDIUM — standards deviation or coverage gap.
  • LOW — informational or style.

Hard gate

Read-only — MUST NOT modify a file, and MUST NOT check out, merge, or otherwise move the repository to the PR's branch: reviewing an inbound PR means reading its DIFF, not adopting its code, and a checkout would run its content through hooks that trust the working tree. BLOCK on any CRITICAL or HIGH finding on your OWN change: it must be resolved before /ca-pr. On an inbound PR there is nothing local to block — the verdict is the deliverable. MUST NOT consume raw reviewer output — only the finding-triagecheckpoint-aggregator

verdict. MUST NOT resolve a [CONFIRM-NN] surfaced during review by guessing.

When NOT to use

  • Opening a PR (reviews dispatch automatically) → /ca-pr.
  • A periodic full-codebase sweep → /ca-checkpoint.
  • A pre-implementation threat model → /ca-threat-model.
  • A question about the code → /ca-btw.

How to use it

Copy the folder

Take arbiterforge/codearbiter-ca-review from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.

Check the name does not clash

The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.