pr-improver
Runs an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over the current branch's changes until a PR review comes back clean, scoped mechanically to the directories the branch touched. Reviews are performed by an installed PR-review skill (default: pr-review-toolkit's review-pr). Use to fix review findings on a branch before opening or updating a pull request ('clean up this branch', 'fix this PR until review passes', 'run review-and-fix on my changes'). NOT for a one-time review — run the PR-review skill directly.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/trailofbits/skills /tmp/pr-improver && cp -r /tmp/pr-improver/plugins/code-improver/skills/pr-improver ~/.claude/skills/pr-improverSKILL.md
# PR Improver
Improve the current branch by running `/code-improver:improve` — a dynamic workflow that
loops a PR reviewer and a fixer subagent over the branch's changes until a review
reports zero critical/major findings. The loop, its ledger, and its guards live in the
workflow; this skill derives the scope from the branch diff and relays the outcome.
## Starting the loop
The user provided: `$ARGUMENTS` (if empty, take base branch and preferences from the
conversation).
### 1. Resolve the branch and its change surface
1. Repo root: `git rev-parse --show-toplevel`. Fail loudly outside a repository.
2. Base: the argument if given, else the repository's default branch
(`git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD` → its short name, falling back to
`main`). Refuse to run when the current branch IS the base — there is no diff to
improve.
3. Changed files: `git diff --name-only <base>...HEAD`. If empty, say so and stop.
4. Scope: the changed files' **directories**, widened — per-file globs are too tight
(PR fixes legitimately add tests next to changed code). Map each changed file to its
repo-relative directory glob `<dir>/**` (`**` at the repo root only if files at the
root changed), then deduplicate and drop globs covered by another.
### 2. Resolve the loop script
The loop is the dynamic workflow `workflows/improve.js` in this plugin. Launch it by
path: `scriptPath` takes a resolved absolute path, and the Workflow tool's `name` resolves
built-in and project workflows, so a marketplace-installed one may not answer to
`code-improver:improve`. Try in order, first hit wins — the home directories come before
`.` so an installed copy beats a checkout of this marketplace:
1. `Bash: ls -d -- "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/improve.js"`
2. `Bash: ls -d -- "${CODEX_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/improve.js"` (if that variable is set instead)
3. `Bash: find ~/.claude ~/.codex . -maxdepth 7 -path '*/code-improver/workflows/improve.js' -print -quit 2>/dev/null`
Use the path exactly as printed. Its plugin directory — the path with
`/workflows/improve.js` removed — is `pluginRoot`. If all three come back empty, try
`{name: "code-improver:improve"}` once; if that is unavailable too, stop and say the loop
could not be located. Do not assemble a path by hand and do not improvise the loop.
### 3. Invoke the workflow
Run it with the Workflow tool, `{scriptPath: "<the path from step 2>", args: {...}}`:
```json
{
"target": "<repo root>",
"reviewer": {
"kind": "skill",
"name": "pr-review-toolkit:review-pr",
"notes": "Review the working tree's changes against <base> as a pull request: correctness, tests, error handling, and the review dimensions the skill prescribes."
},
"scope": ["<derived-dir-glob>/**"],
"pluginRoot": "<the plugin directory from step 2>",
"maxRounds": 5
}
```
- `reviewer` — the default above requires the `pr-review-toolkit` plugin. When the user
names a different PR reviewer (skill or agent), use it, with kind set accordingly.
- `maxRounds` only if the user asked for a different cap.
- `pluginRoot` lets the run find its metrics collector; omit the key only if step 2 fell
through to the workflow name — the workflow then searches for itself.
- `finalize` defaults are right for PRs: no version bump unless the branch sits inside a
plugin, narration strip and docs pass on.
- `decision` only on continuation (below).
The loop's baseline snapshot is the tree at loop start — its scope guard protects the
branch's uncommitted work; the PR's own commits are what the reviewer reviews.
The workflow runs in the background and needs no babysitting: it reviews, fixes,
re-reviews, checks scope after every fix round, and can only complete on a clean review.
It never commits; all changes stay in the working tree.
**If the Workflow tool is unavailable or denied, stop and say so.** Do not improvise the
loop inline with direct edits — the ledger, scope guard, and escalation guarantees live
in the workflow, and an inline imitation has none of them.
**If the result is `halted: "reviewer-unavailable"`, relay it and stop.** The reviewer
is not installed in this session; tell the user which plugin provides it (the default
needs `pr-review-toolkit`) and re-run after installing. Do not review the branch
yourself.
**Do not end your turn while the loop is running.** The Workflow tool returns a task id
immediately; the result comes later. In an interactive session the completion
notification re-invokes you — wait for it. In a non-interactive run (scripted, CI, eval)
there is no later turn: stopping abandons the loop mid-round, so after launching, poll
the task (TaskOutput with the returned task id, or sleep-and-recheck) until it completes,
then relay the result. A session that answers "the loop is running, I'll report later"
has lost the run.
## Relaying the result
The workflow returns a structured result. Report it honestly — the distinctions matter:
- **`converged: true`** — the last action was a review with zero critical/major findings.
Report rounds used, remaining minor findings (`open_minor_count`), and the artifact
paths (`ledger_path`, `metrics`).
- **`capped: true`** — the fix budget ran out and the FINAL review still found blocking
issues. Say plainly: **capped, NOT converged**, and list `open_blocking`. Do not
present this as success.
- **`escalation`** — the loop detected it was not converging (recurring findings,
non-decreasing counts, or a fix relocating a problem). Relay the escalation message and
finding ids to the user: this needs a design decision, not more rounds.
- **`halted`** — a guard fired (scope violation, unregistered new files, a dead or
unavailable reviewer, or a finalize pass whose own edits failed the check that follows
it). Relay the paths in `violations`/`new_untracked_files`, the sites in
`finalize_regressions`, and the notes.
- **`notes`** always travel with the result — surface them; they include loud warnings
sucAudits GitHub Actions workflows for security vulnerabilities in AI agent integrations including Claude Code Action, Gemini CLI, OpenAI Codex, and GitHub AI Inference. Detects attack vectors where attacker-controlled input reaches AI agents running in CI/CD pipelines, including env var intermediary patterns, direct expression injection, dangerous sandbox configurations, and wildcard user allowlists. Use when reviewing workflow files that invoke AI coding agents, auditing CI/CD pipeline security for prompt injection risks, or evaluating agentic action configurations.
Clarify requirements before implementing. Use when serious doubts arise.
Understand a codebase before looking for bugs in it - what each function assumes, what it guarantees, and what it depends on elsewhere. Use when starting an audit, threat model, or architecture review on unfamiliar code, and before any vulnerability-hunting pass.
Scans Algorand smart contracts for 11 common vulnerabilities including rekeying attacks, unchecked transaction fees, missing field validations, and access control issues. Use when auditing Algorand projects (TEAL/PyTeal).
Prepares codebases for security review using Trail of Bits' checklist. Helps set review goals, runs static analysis tools, increases test coverage, removes dead code, ensures accessibility, and generates documentation (flowcharts, user stories, inline comments). Use when preparing your own codebase to be audited by someone else, getting a repository review-ready before an external security review, deciding what to fix before auditors start, or asking what assessors need from a project. For understanding unfamiliar code you are about to audit, use audit-context-building instead.
Scans Cairo/StarkNet smart contracts for 6 critical vulnerabilities including felt252 arithmetic overflow, L1-L2 messaging issues, address conversion problems, and signature replay. Use when auditing StarkNet projects.
Systematic code maturity assessment using Trail of Bits' 9-category framework. Analyzes codebase for arithmetic safety, auditing practices, access controls, complexity, decentralization, documentation, MEV risks, low-level code, and testing, then produces a scorecard with evidence-based ratings and a priority-ordered roadmap. Use when assessing or scoring the maturity of a smart contract or blockchain codebase, producing a maturity scorecard or evaluation, or judging how mature, well-tested, or well-documented such a project is against a rubric.
Scans Cosmos SDK blockchain modules and CosmWasm contracts for consensus-critical vulnerabilities — chain halts, fund loss, state divergence. 25 core + 16 IBC + 10 EVM + 3 CosmWasm patterns. Use when auditing custom x/ modules, reviewing IBC integrations, or assessing pre-launch chain security. Updated for SDK v0.53.x.