file-reviewer
Related Servers
Alternatives to file-reviewer
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables comprehensive security scanning of code repositories to detect secrets, vulnerabilities, dependency issues, and configuration problems. Provides real-time security checks and best practice recommendations to help developers identify and prevent security issues.3 npm2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables code auditing, scanning for committed secrets and vulnerable dependencies, and generating self-review checklists, with optional paid audit pricing.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to safely inspect a local repository's code and metadata while blocking private data from leaving the machine, providing read-only tools for search, change tracking, and integrity verification.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to run deterministic AST safety audits, secret scanning, and sandboxed test execution on codebases, with human approval required before any remediation action.5MIT
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables security auditing, penetration testing, and compliance validation with tools like Semgrep, Trivy, Gitleaks, and OWASP ZAP. Features strict project boundary enforcement and supports OWASP, CIS, and NIST compliance frameworks.7-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI coding assistants to inspect local and remote repositories through sandboxed tools that surface project overviews, structure, dependency audits, Git churn hotspots, and a heuristic health score. It also supports safe GitHub issue searching and creation with built-in duplicate preflight checks, while blocking sensitive files, binary content, and path traversal attacks.74 npmMIT
TDQS
Scored across 18 tools
The tool set is cleanly separated into review_*, report_*, review_queue_*, and rollback_* families, and within review_* the scanning, secrets, external paths, user-level configs, metadata, and single-file read functions target different objects. Even actions like report_write_decision and report_external_choice are distinguishable by the description: one records a finding decision, the other records an external-reference choice.
The namespace-prefix pattern (review_/report_/rollback_/review_queue_) is consistent and predictable, but suffixes mix target nouns like file_metadata and secrets_inventory with imperative verbs like open, read, set_header, and write_fix. This is a minor style inconsistency rather than a functional confusion.
18 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but each tool maps to a distinct step in an unusually complete review workflow: opening repos, scanning files/configs, queuing external paths, writing report entries, and managing rollbacks. The count feels slightly heavy for a single server, but no tool is redundant.
The tool surface covers the review lifecycle well, including entering repos, scanning files and configs, logging decisions and fixes, queuing external paths, and rollback safety. Minor gaps remain: there is no tool to read or finalize the full report from within the server, and rollback_create implies file edits without a matching edit tool, but agents can work around these using report paths and external file tooling.