Loading
Runs an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over any code target — a skill, plugin, module, or directory — using a reviewer the user names: any installed skill or agent. Keeps a cross-round fin
The skill file stays in the publisher's repository.
Paste the copied command in a terminal. It installs this SKILL.md into that agent.
npx skills add trailofbits/skills --skill code-improver -a cursor -y
Runs an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over any code target — a skill, plugin, module, or directory — using a reviewer the user names: any installed skill or agent. Keeps a cross-round findings ledger, escalates when fixes stop converging, and guards scope mechanically. Use when asked to 'improve this code until review passes', 'run an improvement loop with <reviewer>', or to iterate review-and-fix with a specific reviewer. For skills prefer the skill-improver entry; for a branch prefer pr-improver.
Runs an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over any code target — a skill, plugin, module, or directory — using a reviewer the user names: any installed skill or agent. Keeps a cross-round findings ledger, escalates when fixes stop converging, and guards scope mechanically. Use when asked to 'improve this code until review passes', 'run an improvement loop with <reviewer>', or to iterate review-and-fix with a specific reviewer. For skills prefer the skill-improver entry; for a branch prefer pr-improver.
Improve any code target by running /code-improver:improve — a dynamic workflow that
loops the named reviewer and a fixer subagent until a review reports zero critical/major
findings, then strips its own residue. The loop, its ledger, and its guards live in the
workflow; this skill collects the three inputs the generic entry requires and relays the
outcome.
The user provided: $ARGUMENTS (if empty, take the details from the conversation).
plugin-dev:skill-reviewer) → "kind": "agent"pr-review-toolkit:review-pr) → "kind": "skill"
If the name could be either, check the session's skill listing; if still ambiguous,
ask the user. If no reviewer was named, ask — do not pick one.<repo-relative-target>/**) and confirm before launching.The loop is the dynamic workflow workflows/improve.js in this plugin. Launch it by
path: scriptPath takes a resolved absolute path, and the Workflow tool's name resolves
built-in and project workflows, so a marketplace-installed one may not answer to
code-improver:improve. Try in order, first hit wins — the home directories come before
. so an installed copy beats a checkout of this marketplace:
Bash: ls -d -- "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/improve.js"Bash: ls -d -- "${CODEX_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/improve.js" (if that variable is set instead)Bash: find ~/.claude ~/.codex . -maxdepth 7 -path '*/code-improver/workflows/improve.js' -print -quit 2>/dev/nullUse the path exactly as printed. Its plugin directory — the path with
/workflows/improve.js removed — is pluginRoot. If all three come back empty, try
{name: "code-improver:improve"} once; if that is unavailable too, stop and say the loop
could not be located. Do not assemble a path by hand and do not improvise the loop.
Run it with the Workflow tool, {scriptPath: "<the path from step 2>", args: {...}}:
{
"target": "<absolute target path>",
"reviewer": { "kind": "agent|skill", "name": "<namespaced-name>", "notes": "<what the reviewer should know about the target>" },
"scope": ["<repo-relative-glob>/**"],
"pluginRoot": "<the plugin directory from step 2>",
"maxRounds": 5
}
maxRounds only if the user asked for a different cap.pluginRoot lets the run find its metrics collector; omit the key only if step 2 fell
through to the workflow name — the workflow then searches for itself.finalize ({"version_bump": bool, "narration_strip": bool, "docs_pass": bool}) only
to override the defaults: version bump when the target sits inside a plugin, narration
strip and docs pass always.decision only on continuation (below).The workflow runs in the background and needs no babysitting: it reviews, fixes, re-reviews, checks scope after every fix round, and can only complete on a clean review. It never commits; all changes stay in the working tree.
If the Workflow tool is unavailable or denied, stop and say so. Do not improvise the loop inline with direct edits — the ledger, scope guard, and escalation guarantees live in the workflow, and an inline imitation has none of them.
If the result is halted: "reviewer-unavailable", relay it and stop. The named
reviewer is not installed in this session; tell the user which plugin provides it and
re-run after installing. Do not review the target yourself.
Do not end your turn while the loop is running. The Workflow tool returns a task id immediately; the result comes later. In an interactive session the completion notification re-invokes you — wait for it. In a non-interactive run (scripted, CI, eval) there is no later turn: stopping abandons the loop mid-round, so after launching, poll the task (TaskOutput with the returned task id, or sleep-and-recheck) until it completes, then relay the result. A session that answers "the loop is running, I'll report later" has lost the run.
The workflow returns a structured result. Report it honestly — the distinctions matter:
converged: true — the last action was a review with zero critical/major findings.
Report rounds used, remaining minor findings (open_minor_count), and the artifact
paths (ledger_path, metrics).capped: true — the fix budget ran out and the FINAL review still found blocking
issues. Say plainly: capped, NOT converged, and list open_blocking. Do not
present this as success.escalation — the loop detected it was not converging (recurring findings,
non-decreasing counts, or a fix relocating a problem). Relay the escalation message and
finding ids to the user: this needs a design decision, not more rounds.halted — a guard fired (scope violation, unregistered new files, a dead or
unavailable reviewer, or a finalize pass whose own edits failed the check that follows
it). Relay the paths in violations/new_untracked_files, the sites in
finalize_regressions, and the notes.notes always travel with the result — surface them; they include loud warnings
such as "a git repository was initialized".The loop stops on escalation by design. When the user decides, start a fresh run with
the same target and reviewer plus:
{ "decision": "<the user's ruling, verbatim>" }
The new run reloads the on-disk ledger, so every finding, rejection, and verdict carries over — rounds restart, re-derivation does not.
To stop a running loop, stop the workflow task (TaskStop); the ledger on disk is current to the last round and a re-run resumes from it.
skill-improver entry — it wires the right reviewerpr-improver entry — it derives scope from the diff