Tested demoQuality 94/100Review permissions

paperclipai/paperclip/.agents/skills/check-pr/SKILL.md

check-pr

Check a GitHub, GitLab, or Perforce PR/MR/CL for review comments, failing checks, and PR-body gaps. Use when asked to inspect, fix, or prepare a change for submission.

Source repository stars
79,318
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
2
Last source update
2026-08-25
Source checked
2026-08-25

Decision brief

What it does: where it fits

Analyze a pull request (GitHub), merge request (GitLab), or shelved changelist (Perforce) for review comments, status checks, and description completeness, then help address any issues found.

Best for

  • Use when asked to inspect, fix, or prepare a change for submission.

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.
Controlled single-run demoChecked 2026-08-20

What changed when the Skill was used

In this controlled same-task single run, enabling check-pr changed the output from 2075 non-whitespace characters and 22 headings to 2518 characters and 11 headings. Matches among 8 signals extracted from the pinned source changed from 1 to 1. Both actual outputs are shown; this is a structural observation, not a quality score or a universal performance claim.

Same test task

Review a flawed account-settings implementation for a small SaaS product. Prioritize concrete issues, explain impact, and provide corrected examples or decisions. The deliverable must specifically reflect this user intent: Check a GitHub, GitLab, or Perforce PR/MR/CL for review comments, failing checks, and PR-body gaps. Use when asked to inspect, fix, or prepare a change for submission.

Without the Skill
Screenshot of the actual model output for check-pr without the Skill

Baseline: 2075 non-whitespace characters, 22 headings, and 43 list items.

With the Skill
Screenshot of the actual model output for check-pr with the Skill

With Skill: 2518 non-whitespace characters, 11 headings, and 36 list items.

ObservationWithout SkillWith Skill
Source-signal coverage1/8: perforce1/8: perforce
Output structure2075 chars · 22 headings · 43 list items · 2 code blocks2518 chars · 11 headings · 36 list items · 2 code blocks
Verification and caution signals30 verification signals · 14 risk/limitation signals27 verification signals · 13 risk/limitation signals

A prompt you can use

Use the check-pr Skill pinned at 5a1ce7aed823 for my task. Follow its source-specific constraints around `check-pr`, `inputs`, `instructions`, `detect`, then return the finished deliverable with explicit assumptions, verification, failure conditions, and limits. Do not treat the Skill text as a factual source or claim that a single demonstration proves universal performance.

Method and limitationsExpand

Test method

  • Baseline and treatment used the same task, model (gpt-5.3-codex-low), and runner; the only planned difference was whether the complete target Skill text was injected.
  • The treatment used snapshot 67001ec6eb96ae601aa27bc91d9b2415d665334a; the current source commit 5a1ce7aed8238036dc92dcc944c71e08fe6ebc50 was verified against content hash c7697c5e3739. The baseline explicitly prohibited loading any Skill or external rule file.
  • The same deterministic script counted characters, headings, lists, code blocks, verification terms, caution terms, and source signals in both artifacts. Source signals: `check-pr`, `inputs`, `instructions`, `detect`, `platform`, `perforce`, `environment`, `identify`.
  • The visuals are local screenshots of the actual Markdown artifacts in a fixed 1200 × 800 evidence canvas, not recreated product mockups. Raw JSON artifacts and request records are retained in the research directory.

Do not over-read this demo

  • This is one controlled demonstration per condition, not a multi-run statistical benchmark; the model is stochastic.
  • Character, structure, and keyword counts show observable differences but cannot by themselves prove correctness, originality, or business impact.
  • The task is a representative test designed for repeatability, not every real-world use of the Skill; rerun after a material source change.
Editorial review
SkillSignal editorial
Runner
Cursor Agent 2026.08.04-aaa8809
Model
gpt-5.3-codex-low
Refresh due
2026-11-18
Reviewed commit
5a1ce7aed8238036dc92dcc944c71e08fe6ebc50
Test snapshot
67001ec6eb96ae601aa27bc91d9b2415d665334a

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip --skill ".agents/skills/check-pr"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "check-pr" from https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/fa40a1b8d502ac19cfca2fcc5bbbdbf331410787/.agents/skills/check-pr/SKILL.md at commit fa40a1b8d502ac19cfca2fcc5bbbdbf331410787. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Instructions

    First check if the user is working in a Perforce depot by looking for a .p4config file or P4CLIENT/P4PORT environment variables:

    First check if the user is working in a Perforce depot by looking for a .p4config file or P4CLIENT/P4PORT environment variables:
  2. 02

    Get shelved files (for in-review CLs)

    Review the “Get shelved files (for in-review CLs)” section in the pinned source before continuing.

    Review and apply the “Get shelved files (for in-review CLs)” source section.
  3. 03

    List review comments (if using p4 review workflow)

    p4 review -c bash glab api "projects/:fullpath/mergerequests//pipelines" bash HEADSHA=$(gh pr view --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid) bash OWNERREPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner) GREPTILECHECKS=$(gh api "repos/$OWNERREPO/commits/$HEADSHA/check-runs?perpag…

    p4 review -c bash glab api "projects/:fullpath/mergerequests//pipelines" bash HEADSHA=$(gh pr view --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid) bash OWNERREPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner) GREPTILECHECKS=$…
  4. 04

    4. Require a fresh Greptile review for the current head

    For GitHub PRs, do not treat an existing Greptile review, comment, or summary as current unless it is tied to the PR's exact current headRefOid. This is especially important after pushing a new commit to an existing PR: a Greptile review on an older commit is stale, even if the…

    For GitHub PRs, do not treat an existing Greptile review, comment, or summary as current unless it is tied to the PR's exact current headRefOid. This is especially important after pushing a new commit to an existing PR:…Fetch the current head SHA immediately before the Greptile gate:Then inspect check-runs for that commit and require a completed Greptile run:
  5. 05

    Greptile note to reference the current head sha and report a clean review.

    GREPTILENOTES=$(glab api "projects/:fullpath/mergerequests//discussions?perpage=100" \ | jq --arg sha "$MRSHA" '[.[].notes[] | select(.author.username | test("greptile"; "i"))] | sortby(.updatedat // .createdat)') GREPTILENOTECLEAN=$(echo "$GREPTILENOTES" \ | jq --arg sha "$MRSH…

    GREPTILENOTES=$(glab api "projects/:fullpath/mergerequests//discussions?perpage=100" \ | jq --arg sha "$MRSHA" '[.[].notes[] | select(.author.username | test("greptile"; "i"))] | sortby(.updatedat // .createdat)') GREPT…if [ "$GREPTILEJOBSUCCESS" = "0" ] && [ "$GREPTILENOTECLEAN" = "0" ]; then echo "Blocked: no successful Greptile job or completed-clean current-head Greptile note is tied to MR head $MRSHA." exit 1 fiif [ "$GREPTILEJOBBLOCKING" != "0" ]; then echo "Blocked: at least one Greptile job for MR head $MRSHA did not succeed." exit 1 fi bash git add git commit -m "address review feedback" git push bash p4 edit

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

Runs scripts

medium · line 268

The documentation asks the agent to run terminal commands or scripts.

git add <files>

Runs scripts

medium · line 269

The documentation asks the agent to run terminal commands or scripts.

git commit -m "address review feedback"

Writes files

medium · line 275

The documentation asks the agent to create, modify, or delete local files.

p4 edit <file>

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score94/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars79,318SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guidetested outcome pageTestedGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
paperclipai/paperclip
Skill path
.agents/skills/check-pr/SKILL.md
Commit
fa40a1b8d502ac19cfca2fcc5bbbdbf331410787
License
MIT
Collected
2026-08-25
Default branch
master
View the original SKILL.md

Check PR

Analyze a pull request (GitHub), merge request (GitLab), or shelved changelist (Perforce) for review comments, status checks, and description completeness, then help address any issues found.

Inputs

  • PR/MR/CL number (optional): If not provided, detect the PR/MR for the current branch, or the default pending changelist for p4.

Instructions

0. Detect platform

First check if the user is working in a Perforce depot by looking for a .p4config file or P4CLIENT/P4PORT environment variables:

# Check for Perforce environment
if p4 info >/dev/null 2>&1; then
  VCS="perforce"
else
  # Fall back to git remote detection
  REMOTE_URL=$(git remote get-url origin)
  if echo "$REMOTE_URL" | grep -qi "gitlab"; then
    VCS="gitlab"
  else
    VCS="github"
  fi
fi

For self-hosted GitLab instances whose hostname doesn't contain "gitlab", the user can override by passing --vcs gitlab as an input. For Perforce, the user can override by passing --vcs perforce.

1. Identify the PR/MR/CL

If a number was provided, use it. Otherwise, detect it:

GitHub:

gh pr view --json number,headRefName,headRefOid -q '{number: .number, branch: .headRefName, head: .headRefOid}'

GitLab:

glab mr view --output json | jq '.iid'

Perforce:

# List pending changelists for the current user/client
p4 changes -s pending -u $P4USER -c $P4CLIENT

Key field differences between platforms:

  • GitHub: number, headRefName, headRefOid
  • GitLab: iid, source_branch, sha
  • Perforce: changelist number (CL), shelved files for in-review CLs

2. Fetch PR/MR/CL details

GitHub:

gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json title,body,state,reviews,comments,headRefName,headRefOid,statusCheckRollup
OWNER_REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner)
gh api "repos/$OWNER_REPO/pulls/<PR_NUMBER>/comments"
gh api --paginate "repos/$OWNER_REPO/issues/<PR_NUMBER>/comments?per_page=100"

GitHub PRs are also issues, so general PR comments live on the issue comments endpoint. Greptile may edit a single general PR comment on each review cycle instead of creating a new review or comment. Always inspect the latest Greptile-authored general comment by updated_at, including any "Prompt to fix all with AI" section, before concluding that the PR is clear.

GitLab:

glab mr view <MR_IID> --output json
# Fetch discussions (inline diff comments are type "DiffNote"; general comments have null type)
glab api "projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/discussions"

For GitLab, paginate discussions if needed (add ?per_page=100&page=N).

Perforce:

# Get changelist description, files, and status
p4 describe -s <CL_NUMBER>

# Get shelved files (for in-review CLs)
p4 describe -S <CL_NUMBER>

# Get the diff of the shelved changelist
p4 diff2 //...@=<CL_NUMBER> //...@=<CL_NUMBER>

# List review comments (if using p4 review workflow)
p4 review -c <CL_NUMBER>

Key Perforce CL fields:

  • Change: changelist number
  • Status: pending, submitted, shelved
  • Description: the CL description / commit message
  • Files: list of files in the CL

3. Wait for pending checks

Before analyzing, ensure all status checks have completed. If any checks are PENDING or IN_PROGRESS (GitHub) / running or pending (GitLab), poll every 30 seconds until all checks reach a terminal state.

GitHub: poll statusCheckRollup from gh pr view.

GitLab:

glab api "projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/pipelines"

Pipeline statuses: running, pending, success, failed, canceled, skipped. Poll until no pipeline has running or pending status.

Perforce: Perforce doesn't have built-in CI checks natively. If the team uses a review tool (Swarm, etc.) or an external CI triggered by shelve events, check the relevant system. Otherwise, proceed to analysis immediately.

4. Require a fresh Greptile review for the current head

For GitHub PRs, do not treat an existing Greptile review, comment, or summary as current unless it is tied to the PR's exact current headRefOid. This is especially important after pushing a new commit to an existing PR: a Greptile review on an older commit is stale, even if the PR still has a Greptile comment or prior review.

Fetch the current head SHA immediately before the Greptile gate:

HEAD_SHA=$(gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json headRefOid -q .headRefOid)

Then inspect check-runs for that commit and require a completed Greptile run:

OWNER_REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner)
GREPTILE_CHECKS=$(gh api "repos/$OWNER_REPO/commits/$HEAD_SHA/check-runs?per_page=100" \
  --jq '[.check_runs[] | select(.name | test("greptile"; "i"))]')

# A run only counts as a valid fresh pass when it has completed AND concluded cleanly.
# GitHub check-run conclusions: success, neutral, skipped, failure, timed_out,
# cancelled, action_required, stale. Treat success/neutral as clean;
# everything else (especially failure and action_required) must block.
FRESH_GREPTILE_COMPLETED=$(echo "$GREPTILE_CHECKS" \
  | jq '[.[] | select(.status == "completed")] | length')
FRESH_GREPTILE_CLEAN=$(echo "$GREPTILE_CHECKS" \
  | jq '[.[] | select(.status == "completed" and (.conclusion | IN("success","neutral")))] | length')
FRESH_GREPTILE_BLOCKING=$(echo "$GREPTILE_CHECKS" \
  | jq '[.[] | select(.status == "completed" and ((.conclusion | IN("success","neutral")) | not))] | length')

if [ "$FRESH_GREPTILE_COMPLETED" = "0" ]; then
  echo "Blocked: no completed Greptile review/check is tied to current PR head $HEAD_SHA."
  echo "Request a fresh Greptile review against this head before marking the PR check done."
  echo "Suggested trigger: gh pr comment <PR_NUMBER> --body \"@greptile review\""
  exit 1
fi

if [ "$FRESH_GREPTILE_BLOCKING" != "0" ] || [ "$FRESH_GREPTILE_CLEAN" = "0" ]; then
  echo "Blocked: Greptile completed on head $HEAD_SHA but did not conclude clean"
  echo "(conclusion was failure/action_required/timed_out/cancelled/stale, or no clean run exists)."
  echo "Address the findings, push, and re-run Greptile until it concludes success/clean on the new head."
  exit 1
fi

If a Greptile check exists for the current head but is still pending or in progress, wait for it with the same polling pattern used by greploop rather than proceeding from older review material. If no Greptile check appears for the current head after a reasonable wait, report the PR as blocked on a fresh Greptile review for HEAD_SHA and stop. Do not mark the check complete from PR comments, PR reviews, or Greptile summaries that cannot be associated with the current head SHA.

For GitLab installations with Greptile integration, apply the same freshness rule against the MR's current head SHA:

# 1. Get the MR's current head SHA
MR_SHA=$(glab mr view <MR_IID> --output json | jq -r '.sha // .diff_refs.head_sha')

# 2. Find the latest pipeline for that EXACT sha, then the Greptile job within it.
LATEST_PIPELINE_ID=$(glab api "projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/pipelines" \
  | jq -r --arg sha "$MR_SHA" '[.[] | select(.sha == $sha)] | sort_by(.id) | last | .id // empty')

if [ -n "$LATEST_PIPELINE_ID" ]; then
  GREPTILE_JOBS=$(glab api "projects/:fullpath/pipelines/$LATEST_PIPELINE_ID/jobs" \
    | jq --arg sha "$MR_SHA" '[.[] | select(.name | test("greptile"; "i"))
        | {name, status, pipeline_sha: $sha}]')
else
  GREPTILE_JOBS='[]'
fi

GREPTILE_JOB_SUCCESS=$(echo "$GREPTILE_JOBS" \
  | jq '[.[] | select(.status == "success")] | length')
GREPTILE_JOB_BLOCKING=$(echo "$GREPTILE_JOBS" \
  | jq '[.[] | select(.status != "success")] | length')

# 3. If Greptile integrates via MR notes instead of a CI job, require the newest
#    Greptile note to reference the current head sha and report a clean review.
GREPTILE_NOTES=$(glab api "projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/discussions?per_page=100" \
  | jq --arg sha "$MR_SHA" '[.[].notes[]
      | select(.author.username | test("greptile"; "i"))]
      | sort_by(.updated_at // .created_at)')
GREPTILE_NOTE_CLEAN=$(echo "$GREPTILE_NOTES" \
  | jq --arg sha "$MR_SHA" 'if length == 0 then 0
      elif ((last.body // "") | contains($sha) and test("Confidence Score:[[:space:]]*5/5|Confidence:[[:space:]]*5/5|\\b5/5\\b"; "i") and (test("Prompt To Fix|blocking issue|failed|action required"; "i") | not)) then 1
      else 0 end')

if [ "$GREPTILE_JOB_SUCCESS" = "0" ] && [ "$GREPTILE_NOTE_CLEAN" = "0" ]; then
  echo "Blocked: no successful Greptile job or completed-clean current-head Greptile note is tied to MR head $MR_SHA."
  exit 1
fi

if [ "$GREPTILE_JOB_BLOCKING" != "0" ]; then
  echo "Blocked: at least one Greptile job for MR head $MR_SHA did not succeed."
  exit 1
fi

Block completion if, for MR_SHA, there is (a) no Greptile job or note at all (missing), (b) the newest Greptile job/note is tied to a different sha (stale), or (c) the Greptile job status is not success. A completed Greptile result for a different SHA is stale and must block completion.

For Perforce installations with Greptile integration, apply the same rule using the CL's current shelved-revision identity and the Greptile webhook/review artifact tied to it; a Greptile result for an earlier shelf is stale and must block completion.

5. Analyze the PR/MR

Once all checks are complete, evaluate these areas:

A. Status Checks

  • Are all CI checks passing?
  • If any are failing, identify which ones and the failure reason.

B. PR/MR Description

  • Is the description complete and follows team conventions?
  • Are all required sections filled in?
  • Are there TODOs or placeholders that need updating?

C. Review Comments

  • Inline code review comments that need addressing
  • Look for bot review comments (e.g. from greptile-apps[bot] on GitHub, or the Greptile bot user on GitLab, linters, etc.)
  • Human reviewer comments
  • Perforce: review comments from p4 review or external review tools

D. General Comments

  • Discussion comments on the PR/MR
  • For GitHub, check the issue comments endpoint and use updated_at to catch bot comments edited in place. Greptile's latest edited summary can contain actionable items even when there are no new inline comments.
  • Bot comments (deploy previews, etc.) - usually informational
  • Perforce: CL description should include a clear summary, affected files rationale, and testing notes

6. Categorize issues

For each issue found, categorize as:

CategoryMeaning
ActionableCode changes, test improvements, or fixes needed
InformationalVerification notes, questions, or FYIs that don't require changes
Already addressedIssues that appear to be resolved by subsequent commits

7. Report findings

Present a summary table:

AreaIssueStatusAction Needed
Status ChecksCI build failingFailingFix type error in src/api.ts
Review"Add null check" - @reviewerActionableAdd guard clause
DescriptionTODO placeholder in test planActionableFill in test plan
Review"Looks good" - @teammateInformationalNone

8. Fix issues (if requested)

If there are actionable items:

  1. Switch to the PR/MR's branch (git) or ensure files are open in the correct CL (Perforce) if not already.
  2. Ask the user if they want to fix the issues.
  3. If yes, make the fixes, then:

GitHub/GitLab: commit and push:

git add <files>
git commit -m "address review feedback"
git push

Perforce: open files for edit, make changes, and re-shelve:

p4 edit <file>
# make changes
p4 shelve -f -c <CL_NUMBER>

9. Resolve review threads

After addressing comments, resolve the corresponding review threads.

Perforce - Perforce does not have a native "resolve thread" concept. Instead, mark comments as addressed by updating the CL description or by responding in the review tool being used (Swarm, etc.). If using p4 review:

# Mark files as reviewed after addressing feedback
p4 review -c <CL_NUMBER>

GitHub - fetch unresolved thread IDs (paginate if needed - see the GraphQL reference):

gh api graphql -f query='
query($cursor: String) {
  repository(owner: "OWNER", name: "REPO") {
    pullRequest(number: PR_NUMBER) {
      reviewThreads(first: 100, after: $cursor) {
        pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
        nodes {
          id
          isResolved
          comments(first: 1) {
            nodes { body path }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}'

If hasNextPage is true, repeat with -f cursor=ENDCURSOR to get remaining threads.

Then resolve threads that have been addressed or are informational:

gh api graphql -f query='
mutation {
  resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) {
    thread { isResolved }
  }
}'

Batch multiple resolutions into a single mutation using aliases (t1, t2, etc.).

GitLab - fetch unresolved discussions (see the GitLab API reference):

glab api "projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/discussions?per_page=100"

Filter for discussions where "resolved": false. Collect each discussion's id.

Resolve each discussion individually (GitLab has no batch resolution):

glab api --method PUT \
  "projects/:fullpath/merge_requests/<MR_IID>/discussions/<DISCUSSION_ID>" \
  --field resolved=true

Repeat for each unresolved discussion ID.

10. Multiple PRs/MRs/CLs

If checking a chain of PRs/MRs/CLs, process them sequentially.

Perforce - to check multiple changelists at once:

p4 changes -s pending -u $P4USER -c $P4CLIENT -l

Output format

Summarize:

  • PR/MR/CL title or description and current state
  • Platform detected (GitHub / GitLab / Perforce)
  • Status checks summary (passing/failing/pending) - or N/A for Perforce
  • Total issues found
  • Actionable items with descriptions
  • Items that can be ignored with reasons
  • Recommended next steps

Frequently asked questions

What to verify before installation and use

What does the check-pr source document cover?

Analyze a pull request (GitHub), merge request (GitLab), or shelved changelist (Perforce) for review comments, status checks, and description completeness, then help address any issues found.

How do I install check-pr?

The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip --skill ".agents/skills/check-pr". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

Which permission-related actions were detected?

Static rules flagged exec-script, write-files in the source; the page lists the matching lines and excerpts.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing

Computed 10045,511

coreyhaines31/marketingskills

ab-testing

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program

Computed 10045,511

coreyhaines31/marketingskills

churn-prevention

When the user wants to reduce churn, build cancellation flows, set up save offers, recover failed payments, or implement retention strategies. Also use when the user mentions 'churn,' 'cancel flow,' 'offboarding,' 'save offer,' 'dunning,' 'failed payment recovery,' 'win-back,' 'retention,' 'exit survey,' 'pause subscription,' 'involuntary churn,' 'people keep canceling,' 'churn rate is too high,' 'how do I keep users,' or 'customers are leaving.' Use this whenever someone is losing subscribers o

Computed 10024,921

alirezarezvani/claude-skills

app-store-optimization

App Store Optimization (ASO) toolkit for researching keywords, analyzing competitor rankings, generating metadata suggestions, and improving app visibility on Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Use when the user asks about ASO, app store rankings, app metadata, app titles and descriptions, app store listings, app visibility, or mobile app marketing on iOS or Android. Supports keyword research and scoring, competitor keyword analysis, metadata optimization, A/B test planning, launch checklist

Computed 10015,122

wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep

citation-audit

Use it for operations and research tasks; the detail page covers purpose, installation, and practical steps.