This skill performs SB-owned code review, records findings, and drives the fix loop.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add alo-exp/silver-bullet --skill silver:review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Silver:Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/alo-exp-silver-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: silver:review
description: This skill performs SB-owned code review, records findings, and drives the fix loop.
argument-hint: "<review scope>"
version: 0.1.0
---
# /silver:review - Code Review
SB-owned code review records findings and drives the fix loop while preserving
SB's strict artifact and evidence requirements.
## Output
Write or update `.planning/REVIEW.md`.
## Process
1. Display `SILVER BULLET > REVIEW`.
2. Read the review request, SPEC, PLAN, SUMMARY, VERIFICATION, and changed files.
3. Review for bugs, regressions, security issues, missing tests, broken docs,
maintainability risks, and release blockers.
4. When the review scope touches API, data, dependency, performance, structure,
CI, environment, accessibility, content/search, UI, architecture, runtime,
incident, retro, or benchmark surfaces, invoke or apply `silver:domain-audit`
for the affected packs and merge the normalized findings into REVIEW.md.
5. Report findings first, ordered by severity, with file and line references.
6. For each finding, classify severity as BLOCK, WARN, or INFO.
7. Fix BLOCK findings before ship unless the user explicitly accepts the risk.
8. Re-run targeted verification after fixes and update REVIEW.md.
9. **Score deployment risk** (see Deployment Risk Scoring below) and include
the score in REVIEW.md.
## Deployment Risk Scoring
After listing findings, assign a deployment risk tier to the overall change set.
This score reflects how risky it is to deploy the change to production — independent
of whether all review findings are resolved.
| Tier | Label | Criteria |
|------|-------|----------|
| 1 | `LOW` | Docs, config, copy, dependency bumps (non-breaking), test additions. No production data path changes. |
| 2 | `MEDIUM` | New features behind flags, additive API changes, non-critical bug fixes, schema changes with safe migrations. |
| 3 | `HIGH` | Auth/authz changes, breaking API changes, migrations that modify existing rows, performance-critical paths, payment/billing logic. |
| 4 | `CRITICAL` | Multi-tenant data isolation changes, security patches for active exploits, production data backfills, irreversible schema drops, changes to authentication secrets or encryption. |
Write in REVIEW.md:
```markdown
## Deployment Risk
Tier: HIGH (example)
Rationale: <one sentence explaining the highest-risk change>
Recommended deploy steps:
- <e.g., "Deploy behind feature flag">
- <e.g., "Run migration in read-only first">
- <e.g., "Verify rollback plan before deploying">
```
The deployment risk tier is informational — it does not block ship on its own.
However, CRITICAL tier requires the user to explicitly acknowledge the risk
before `silver:ship` proceeds.
## Optional Review Enrichment
Follow `docs/external-review-policy.md`. External second-opinion reviewers may
be used when the user requests them or the change is architecturally significant,
but they feed into REVIEW.md and do not replace this SB review artifact.
Normalize imported findings with `docs/evidence-schema.md`.
Before completing review, run when available:
```bash
bash scripts/validate-evidence-findings.sh
```
Malformed finding tables surface as delivery warnings (or blocks when strict mode
is enabled). See `hooks/lib/evidence-schema-gate.sh`.
## Exit Gate
Review passes only when all BLOCK findings are fixed or explicitly accepted and
REVIEW.md reflects the final state.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!