Review Radar

Name: Review Radar
Rating: 4.8
Author: Garry Stack

by Garry Stack✓ verified author · 已验证·3mo ago

Find the bugs, regressions, and missing tests first.

先找 bug、回归和缺失测试。

Code ReviewCodexGitHub PR reviewLow risk · 低风险trusted · 官方/可信open source · 开源

Before you install安装前须知

✓No special access needs declared未声明特殊权限需求

Editor's verdict· 编辑结论

Best when you want PR review insights without committing to a full review workflow. Surfaces the same regression-and-missing-tests signal as gstack-review, but in a quieter, suggestion-only mode — no fix application, no diff edits, no comment threads. Strongest for senior engineers who want a second opinion before they merge their own PR. Weakest when the goal is gating others' code; for that, gstack-review's heavier loop pays off.
想拿 PR 评审的洞察、但又不想绑定到完整评审流程时，它最合适。给出的回归和缺测试信号跟 gstack-review 是同一档，但只输出建议——不动 diff、不写评论、不申请修复。最适合资深工程师在自己 merge 之前做二次审视。要给别人代码把关时它不够用，那种场景 gstack-review 的更重流程才能撑住。
— Editorial team · 编辑团队

Install via Skills CLI

Use npx skills add to install this skill into the selected agent. Phase 0 commands are generated from source rules, not verified.

Codex

npx skills add https://github.com/garry-stack/review-radar -g -a codex -y

Drop `-g` to install project-locally

✓

Best for适合什么场景

Focused code review聚焦代码评审
Regression hunting回归问题排查
Missing negative-path tests缺失负路径测试

✗

Not for不适合什么场景

Browser QA浏览器 QA
Release communication发布沟通
Non-code writing tasks非代码写作任务

vs alternativesvs 其他选择

Full compare table完整对比表 →

#1GStack Review

Find the risky changes before the branch lands.

★ 4.9·123k stars

diff · 差异Best first pick for high-signal PR review. It reads the actual diff instead of re-summarizing the whole repo, so the review stays grounded in code that changed. Strongest on trust-boundary cases — SQL injection, auth checks, conditional side-effects — where surface reviewers usually miss the failure mode. Skip it for pure style nits; bring in a linter instead. Try it on a feature branch before relying on it for hot-fix gating.

QA Loop

Open the product, try the flow, fix what breaks, repeat.

★ 4.9·15k stars

diff · 差异Best browser QA pick when you need evidence to leave a paper trail. Each run produces screenshots, console diffs, and a reproducible action log — much harder for stakeholders to wave off than "I tested it locally." Works well as a pre-merge gate and for filing bugs with repro steps attached. Not for unit tests, and not for authenticated production sessions where the screenshot itself becomes a data risk.

#2Git Shiproom

Pre-flight every branch before you ask for review.

★ 4.9·13k stars

diff · 差异Best for the narrow gap between "my branch is ready" and "a reviewer can pick it up cold." Runs a pre-flight: dependency drift, missing tests for the changed files, commits that don't match the PR title, and writes a handoff note your reviewer can read in 60 seconds. It is not a code reviewer — it does not audit logic. Use it as the last thing before requesting review, not as a replacement for review itself.

Side-by-side compare维度对比

Key differences with same-lane alternatives

	this skill · 当前Review Radar	GStack Review	QA Loop	Git Shiproom
Rating · 评分	4.8	4.9	4.9	4.9
Stars · 星标	11k	123k	15k	13k
Risk · 风险	Low risk · 低风险	Low risk · 低风险	Medium risk · 中风险	Low risk · 低风险
Best for · 最适合	Focused code review	Pre-merge PR review	Browser smoke tests	Pre-flight every branch before you ask for review.
Not for · 不适合	Browser QA	Pure style review	Pure unit testing	Workflows that require stronger human review than this catalog entry documents.

Audit notes审计备注

last reviewed 2026-06-10 · 复查

Source源码open on GitHub · 公开✓

Author作者verified org · 已验证✓

Network网络访问read-only · 只读✓

Filesystem文件写入sandboxed · 沙箱✓

Dependencies依赖audited · 已审计✓

Telemetry遥测none · 无✓