plugins/review-agent-governance/skills/review-agent-setup/SKILL.md
Configure human-in-the-loop gating for AI agent review actions in Claude Code. Use when setting up a project where an agent may post PR reviews, comments, merges, or edit CI configuration, and you want a cryptographically auditable approval trail with Cedar-enforced gates.
npx skillsauth add wshobson/agents review-agent-setupInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Gate AI agent review actions (PR reviews, comments, merges, CI edits) behind explicit human approval. Every attempt, approved or denied, produces an Ed25519-signed receipt.
Install it in projects where a Claude Code agent:
gh pr review, gh pr merge)gh issue comment, gh issue close)gh release create).github/workflows/, .gitlab-ci.yml)main, master, release, production)If the agent is only doing local file edits and running tests, this plugin is
overkill. Use protect-mcp for general tool-call policy enforcement and skip
this one.
claude plugin install wshobson/agents/review-agent-governance
cp .claude/plugins/review-agent-governance/policies/review-agent-governance.cedar \
./review-governance.cedar
You can edit this file to match your project's specific rules. See
../agents/review-policy-author.md for guidance on authoring review
policies.
mkdir -p ./review-receipts
echo "./review-receipts/" >> .gitignore
echo "./review-governance.key" >> .gitignore
echo "./.review-approved" >> .gitignore
The first invocation of protect-mcp sign will create the key. Commit the
public key from the first receipt so auditors can verify later.
The Cedar policy denies review-surface actions unconditionally. To approve a specific action, open an approval window before it and close it after.
# Before the action you want to approve
touch ./.review-approved
# Let Claude Code run the review / comment / merge
# Immediately after
rm ./.review-approved
/approve-review "Reviewing PR #123 authored by contributor X"
This creates ./.review-approved with the given reason embedded as a note,
and writes a human-approved receipt to the chain. A follow-up rm is still
needed to close the window.
If you want every tool call to go through Cedar with no approval bypass:
export REVIEW_APPROVAL_FLAG=./.never-approve
Any tool call matching a forbid rule will be denied; approved windows have no effect. Useful for CI or for a locked-down audit run.
List all receipts:
ls -la ./review-receipts/
Verify the entire chain offline:
npx @veritasacta/verify ./review-receipts/*.json
Exit 0 means every receipt is authentic and the chain is intact. Exit 1 means one receipt has been tampered with. Exit 2 means a receipt is malformed.
Look at recent denials:
/list-pending
Within Claude Code this slash command walks the receipt chain and prints
any recent decision: deny entries with the tool name, command pattern,
and timestamp.
# 1. Human reviews the agent's proposed comment
$ /list-pending
Recent denials:
- 2026-04-17T14:23:01Z Bash "gh pr review 42 --approve --body 'LGTM'"
- 2026-04-17T14:23:02Z Bash "gh pr comment 42 --body 'Looking good'"
# 2. Human decides the first one is appropriate, approves it
$ /approve-review "Approving LGTM on PR 42 after visual inspection"
./.review-approved created
# 3. Agent retries the action; this time it succeeds
$ agent: gh pr review 42 --approve --body "LGTM"
[receipt: rec_XXX, decision=allow, reason=human_approved]
# 4. Human closes the window
$ rm ./.review-approved
Every step is in the receipt chain. The chain is offline-verifiable for regulators, counterparties, or downstream auditors who want to confirm that no review action bypassed the human gate.
If both plugins are installed, run them side by side:
{
"hooks": {
"PreToolUse": [
{
"matcher": ".*",
"hooks": [
{
"type": "command",
"command": "npx [email protected] evaluate --policy ./protect.cedar --tool \"$TOOL_NAME\" --input \"$TOOL_INPUT\" --fail-on-missing-policy false"
}
]
},
{
"matcher": ".*",
"hooks": [
{
"type": "command",
"command": "if [ -f ./.review-approved ]; then exit 0; fi; npx [email protected] evaluate --policy ./review-governance.cedar --tool \"$TOOL_NAME\" --input \"$TOOL_INPUT\" --fail-on-missing-policy false"
}
]
}
]
}
}
Both hooks must pass for the tool call to proceed. Cedar deny in either policy blocks it.
tools
Install and operate Hermes Tweet, a Hermes Agent plugin for X/Twitter research, timeline reading, tweet analysis, and approval-gated private or state-changing operations. Use this skill when installing Hermes Tweet, researching X/Twitter accounts, monitoring launch signals, investigating mentions, auditing giveaways, or preparing gated X operations. Use proactively when a Hermes Agent workflow needs current X/Twitter context. Requires XQUIK_API_KEY for read and action tools.
testing
Audit and rewrite prose so it stops reading as machine-generated. Use this skill when asked to remove AI-isms, clean up AI writing, edit a draft for AI tells, audit a README, changelog, release note, PR description, or blog post for machine-sounding prose, or make text sound less like AI. Supports a detect-only mode, a rewrite mode, and an edit-in-place mode, with optional voice and context profiles.
development
Python design patterns including KISS, Separation of Concerns, Single Responsibility, and composition over inheritance. Use this skill when designing a new service or component from scratch and choosing how to layer responsibilities, when refactoring a God class or monolithic function that has grown too large, when deciding whether to add a new abstraction or live with duplication, when evaluating a pull request for structural issues like tight coupling or leaking internal types, when choosing between inheritance and composition for a new class hierarchy, or when a codebase is becoming hard to test because of entangled I/O and business logic.
development
This skill should be used when the user asks to "optimize a prompt", "improve prompt performance", "design a prompt template", "write better prompts", "debug prompt issues", "use chain-of-thought", "structured prompting", "few-shot prompting", or wants to apply advanced prompt engineering patterns for production LLM applications.