by electricsheephq · AI Tool · ★ 50
Last updated: · Indexed by AgentSkillsHub · Auto-synced every 8h
git clone https://github.com/electricsheephq/evaos-code-review-bot-neondiff.git neondiffTaken from the project's README on GitHub. Check the security audit before running it.
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.
| Stars | 50 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Language | TypeScript |
| Category | AI Tool |
| Quality Score | 58/100 |
| Open Issues | 155 |
| Last Updated | 2026-09-23 |
| Created | 2026-06-30 |
| Platforms | node |
| Est. Tokens | ~20k |
NeonDiff NeonDiff is a local-first AI PR reviewer for teams and agents that want the review loop without handing every diff to a hosted review SaaS. Use it when you want a GitHub App to review pull requests from a local worker, with your GitHub installation, your provider keys, your repo policy, and public-safe evidence for every live posting decision.
Looking for a evaos-code-review-bot-neondiff alternative? If you're comparing evaos-code-review-bot-neondiff with other ai tool tools, these 2 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.
Skill to talk to Claude about your projects over the phone
.NET MAUI skills for GitHub Copilot and Claude Code
Explore other popular ai tool tools:
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: