jev-code-reviewer — security grade SAFE, quality 63/100

Security audit verdict: SAFE · quality 63/100

No red flags found in any of the 11 categories — no credential harvesting, no data exfiltration, no curl-pipe-shell installer. Scanned against the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy, refreshed every 8 hours. Full audit →

by egma-ai · Agent Tool · ★ 111

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

🔒 Is jev-code-reviewer safe to install? View the security audit →

About jev-code-reviewer

Jev-Code-Reviewer Most PRs that are generated by agents today get YOLO merged because its hard for human mind to comprehend when your agent just suddenly shows up with 230 file changes. This is an attempt to reduce the mental burden by classifying each change in a review to P0, P1, P2. Only P0 are shown by default. The priorities are configurable. The diffs are also show using a natural language. The original code is one toggle away. It runs on your computer, for reviewing your own coding agent's PRs, and posts nothing to GitHub. Watch the recording · Open the demo PR. The bundled recording uses real Jev classifications and labeled, prepared explanation copy (provenance). Quick demo Needs Node.js 22+. Open http://127.0.0.1:4731/demo for the replay, which makes no provider calls, or load the extension (below) and open the demo PR's Files changed page. Review your own PR Needs the GitHub CLI signed in () and a local clone whose is the PR's repository. sh npm link # adds the jev-reviewer command jev-reviewer setup

Quick Facts

Stars111
Forks1
LanguageJavaScript
CategoryAgent Tool
LicenseMIT
Quality Score62.6494135492042/100
Open Issues2
Last Updated2026-09-25
Created2026-09-19
Platformscli, node
Est. Tokens~14k

Compatible Skills

These tools work well together with jev-code-reviewer for enhanced workflows:

  • awesome-jev — semantic(0.18)+complementary+same_lang+similar_pop+shared_platform (56%)
  • jev-webmcp-extension — semantic(0.17)+complementary+same_lang+similar_pop+shared_platform (56%)
  • caterpillar — semantic(0.16)+complementary+shared_fw(openai)+similar_pop+shared_platform (53%)

jev-code-reviewer alternative? Top 1 similar tools

Looking for a jev-code-reviewer alternative? If you're comparing jev-code-reviewer with other agent tool tools, these 1 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.

  • tutor-skills by RoundTable02 · ⭐ 400

    A Claude Code skill that turns PDFs, docs, and codebases into Obsidian study vaults

More Agent Tool Tools

Explore other popular agent tool tools:

View all Agent Tool tools →

Popular JavaScript Agent Tools

Frequently Asked Questions

What is jev-code-reviewer?

jev-code-reviewer is Review behavior, not just diffs. Jev prioritizes human attention; OpenAI explains the changes. Local CLI + agent skill + GitHub extension.. It is categorized as a Agent Tool with 111 GitHub stars.

What programming language is jev-code-reviewer written in?

jev-code-reviewer is primarily written in JavaScript.

How do I install or use jev-code-reviewer?

You can find installation instructions and usage details in the jev-code-reviewer GitHub repository at github.com/egma-ai/jev-code-reviewer. The project has 111 stars and 1 forks, indicating an active community.

What license does jev-code-reviewer use?

jev-code-reviewer is released under the MIT license, making it free to use and modify according to the license terms.

What are the best alternatives to jev-code-reviewer?

The top alternatives to jev-code-reviewer on Agent Skills Hub include tutor-skills. Each offers a different approach to the same problem space — compare them side-by-side by stars, quality score, and community activity.

How this security grade is produced

Grades come from a rule-based scan built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy, covering 11 red-flag categories including credential harvesting, data exfiltration, and curl | sh installers. 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 Agent Tool tools