CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

pleaseai/cubic

AI-powered code review using Cubic CLI. Detects bugs, security vulnerabilities, and style issues before commits.

76

Quality

96%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

review.mdcommands/

description:
Run Cubic AI code review on current changes. Detects bugs, security vulnerabilities, and style issues. Usage - /cubic:review [--base <branch>] [--commit <ref>] [--prompt "<instructions>"]
allowed-tools:
Bash, Read, Edit

Cubic AI Code Review

Run an AI-powered code review using Cubic CLI and apply fixes.

Workflow

Step 1: Determine review scope

Analyze $ARGUMENTS to determine the review mode:

User IntentCommand
Review uncommitted changes (default)cubic review --json
Review branch diff against basecubic review --base <branch> --json
Review specific commitcubic review --commit <ref> --json
Review with custom focuscubic review --prompt "<instructions>" --json

If $ARGUMENTS is empty, default to reviewing uncommitted changes.

Step 1.5: Sanitize arguments

Before constructing any Bash command, validate that user-provided values (branch names, commit refs, prompt text) do not contain shell metacharacters (;, &&, ||, |, `, $(), ', newlines). Always use single quotes around user-provided values when interpolating into shell commands. Reject any input containing command separators, substitution patterns, or single quotes (which break single-quote escaping).

Step 2: Run Cubic review

Execute the appropriate command via Bash. Always include --json for structured output. Ensure all user-provided arguments are properly shell-quoted.

cubic review --json

If cubic is not installed, inform the user:

cubic CLI is not installed. Install it with:
  curl -fsSL https://cubic.dev/install | bash
  # or: npm install -g @cubic-dev-ai/cli

Step 3: Parse and analyze results

Parse the JSON output. Each issue contains:

  • priority: Severity level (P0 = critical, P1 = high, P2 = medium, P3 = low)
  • file: File path where the issue was found
  • line: Line number of the issue
  • title: Brief description of the issue
  • description: Detailed explanation

Step 4: Present findings

Summarize the review results grouped by priority:

=== Cubic Review Results ===

Found N issues (X critical, Y high, Z medium, W low)

[P0] file:line - title
  description

[P1] file:line - title
  description

...

Step 5: Propose fixes and get user approval

For each P0 and P1 issue:

  1. Read the referenced file at the specified line
  2. Propose a fix and explain the change
  3. Wait for user approval before applying with Edit

Do not apply fixes automatically. Always present proposed changes to the user first.

For P2/P3 issues, list them as suggestions without fixing.

Step 6: Verify fixes

After applying fixes, re-run cubic review --json to confirm issues are resolved.

=== Cubic Review Complete ===

Scope: <uncommitted changes | branch diff | commit review>
Issues found: N
Issues fixed: M
Remaining: N-M
$ARGUMENTS

commands

review.md

README.md

tile.json