droid-code-review: Droid code review

by Factory-AI · AI Tool · ★ 54

Last updated: · Indexed by AgentSkillsHub · Auto-synced every 8h

Security audit verdict: SAFE · quality 28/100

None of the 42 rules matched — no credential harvesting, no data exfiltration, no curl-pipe-shell installer. Scanned against 42 published rules built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy, refreshed every 8 hours. Full audit →

The quality score combines nine heuristic checks of the repo and its README: completeness, clarity, specificity, examples, structure, agent readiness, step-by-step content, instruction quality and security notes. It rates how well the project explains itself to an agent, not the code.

Quick Facts

Stars54
Forks4
CategoryAI Tool
LicenseMIT
Quality Score28/100
Last Updated2026-08-07
Created2025-10-16
Est. Tokens~4k

About droid-code-review

Factory Droid Review An AI-powered code review GitHub Action using Factory's Droid to analyze code changes and identify critical issues. Note: This action has been deprecated in favor of . Please use for new integrations.

droid-code-review alternative? Top 3 similar tools

Looking for a droid-code-review alternative? If you're comparing droid-code-review with other ai tool tools, these 3 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.

  • redesigned-pancake by Sfedfcv · ⭐ 266

    Skip to content github / docs Code Issues 80 Pull requests 35 Discussions Actions Projects 2 Security Insights

  • claude-code-voice-skill by abracadabra50 · ⭐ 169

    Skill to talk to Claude about your projects over the phone

  • maui-skills by davidortinau · ⭐ 163

    .NET MAUI skills for GitHub Copilot and Claude Code

More AI Tool Tools

Explore other popular ai tool tools:

View all AI Tool tools →

How this security grade is produced

Grades come from a rule-based scan built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy: 42 published rules, covering credential harvesting, data exfiltration, curl | sh installers and more. It is a first-layer scan, not a manual audit — we say so rather than overstate it.

The scale of the problem is documented independently: Liu et al. (2026), in a study of 31,132 agent skills, report that 26.1% contain security vulnerabilities. Our own full-catalog census is published as a citable open dataset.

Sources & who's responsible:

View on GitHub → Browse AI Tool tools