cc-code-review
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLAUDE_CODE_PATH | No | Path to the claude executable or cli.js to use (auto-detected by default; shell shims such as .cmd/.bat/.ps1 are not accepted). | |
| CLAUDE_REVIEW_MODEL | No | Default model to use for reviews. | |
| CLAUDE_REVIEW_LOG_DIR | No | Directory for run logs (logs contain excerpts of reviewed code; on Windows there are no POSIX permission bits, so point this at a directory with your own ACLs for stricter isolation). | %TEMP%/cc-code-review |
| CLAUDE_REVIEW_SHELL_GUARD | No | Set to 0 to disable the PreToolUse shell chained-command interception (only for debugging false positives; not recommended, the server will still fail closed). | 1 |
| CLAUDE_REVIEW_TIMEOUT_MIN | No | Default review timeout in minutes. | 20 |
| CLAUDE_REVIEW_MAX_BUDGET_USD | No | Default API spend cap in USD (0 disables the cap). | 5 |
| CLAUDE_REVIEW_ALLOW_UNGUARDED | No | Set to 1 to allow reviews to run when the PreToolUse hook is not active or its self-test fails. By default the server refuses to run in that case. | |
| CLAUDE_REVIEW_AUTO_INSTALL_SKILL | No | Whether to automatically install the bundled code-review skill when it is missing. | 1 |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| claude_review_envA | Check the Claude Code CLI installation, the code-review skill, the auth/gateway setup, and helper tools (git/gh). Set installSkill=true to (re)install the bundled code-review skill into ~/.claude/skills/code-review (never overwrites a user-managed skill there). |
| claude_code_reviewA | Run Claude Code's code-review skill (5 parallel reviewer subagents, 0-100 confidence scoring, keeps findings >=80) on a repository and return the markdown report. Costs Claude API credits; a run typically takes 2-15 minutes. Afterwards, fix the code and re-run to verify, or use claude_review_followup with the returned session_id. |
| claude_review_statusA | Poll a background review started by claude_code_review (which returns fast with a jobId because real reviews take 2-15 minutes). With jobId: returns elapsed time while running, or the full report/result when finished. With cancel=true: aborts the run and stops billing. Without jobId: lists the recent jobs of this server process. |
| claude_review_followupA | Continue the conversation of a previous claude_code_review run (same reviewer context, e.g. '为什么第 2 条是问题？' or 're-check after my fix'). Pass the session_id returned by claude_code_review. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a distinct role: run a review, poll/cancel/list jobs, check the environment, and continue a prior session. The only mild confusion is that claude_code_review's description implies it returns the report directly while claude_review_status says it returns a jobId fast, blurring the run/status boundary.
Three tools follow a clean claude_review_* pattern (status, env, followup), but the primary tool is named claude_code_review, deviating from the shared prefix. The verb_noun style is otherwise readable and consistent.
Four tools is well-scoped for a focused code-review workflow: trigger, monitor/cancel, environment setup, and follow-up. No redundant or padding tools.
The lifecycle is well covered: run review, poll status, cancel, list jobs, check env, and follow up on a session. Minor gaps like fetching a specific past report by session_id or explicit job deletion are only small omissions.