CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

pleaseai/cubic

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

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

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