fresh-eyes-review
Skill6 starsChanged 12 months agoMITView on GitHub
Structured pre-ship review covering security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, path traversal, command injection), logic errors (off-by-one, race conditions, null handling), business-rule correctness, and performance issues (N+1 queries, unbounded loops) — catches bugs that pass tests and blocks shipping until findings are fixed. Use when about to run git commit, about to create a pull request, or about to declare an implementation complete.
5 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- eai-org/agent-toolkittheir own version, first seen Oct 22, 2026
- soilSpoon/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- Dely0/fresh-eyes-reviewtheir own version, first seen Sep 16, 2026
- kcholakorn/fresh-eyes-reviewtheir own version, first seen May 29, 2026
- michellepellon/superpowersedited, first seen Mar 23, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- michellepellon/superpowers★ 119% same
Wrote their own version · 4
- eai-org/agent-toolkit★ 85same name
- Dely0/fresh-eyes-review★ 2same name
- kcholakorn/fresh-eyes-review★ 1same name
- soilSpoon/skills★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repositoryOne other file it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 109
Add test covering the issue (if not present)
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Fresh-Eyes Review
Core Principle
"NO COMMIT WITHOUT FRESH-EYES REVIEW FIRST"
This represents a final quality gate executed after implementation completion, passing tests, and peer review. The discipline applies universally, even without explicit skill activation.
Key Distinctions
Fresh-eyes review differs fundamentally from testing and code review:
| Approach | Focus | Blind Spots |
| Testing | Validates expected behavior | Can't test for unknown edge cases |
| Code review | Patterns and quality | Reviewer trusts author's intent |
| Fresh-eyes | Deliberate re-reading with psychological distance | Catches what you thought was correct |
Critical insight: "100% test coverage and passing scenarios" can coexist with "critical bugs" waiting discovery.
Required Process
Step 1 - Announce Commitment
Explicitly declare: "Starting fresh-eyes review of [N] files. This will take 2-5 minutes."
This announcement creates accountability and reframes your mindset from implementation to audit.
Step 2 - Security Vulnerability Checklist
Review all touched files for security issues:
| Vulnerability | What to Check |
| SQL Injection | All database queries use parameterized statements, never string concatenation |
| XSS | All user-provided content is escaped before rendering in HTML |
| Path Traversal | File paths are validated, ../ sequences rejected or normalized |
| Command Injection | Shell commands don't include unsanitized user input |
| IDOR | Resources are access-controlled, not just unguessable IDs |
| Auth Bypass | Every protected endpoint checks authentication and authorization |
Example finding:
// Before: SQL injection vulnerability
const user = await db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = '${userId}'`);
// After: Parameterized query
const user = await db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1', [userId]);Step 3 - Logic Error Checklist
| Error Type | What to Check |
| Off-by-one | Array indices, loop bounds, pagination limits |
| Race conditions | Concurrent access to shared state, async operations |
| Null/undefined | Every . chain could throw; defensive checks present? |
| Type coercion | == vs ===, implicit conversions |
| State mutations | Unexpected side effects on input parameters? |
| Error swallowing | Empty catch blocks, ignored promise rejections |
Example finding:
// Before: Off-by-one in pagination
const hasMore = results.length < pageSize;
// After: Correct boundary
const hasMore = results.length === pageSize;Step 4 - Business Rule Checklist
| Check | Questions |
| Calculations | Do formulas match requirements exactly? Currency rounding correct? |
| Conditions | AND vs OR logic correct? Negations applied properly? |
| Edge cases | Empty input, single item, maximum values, zero values? |
| Error messages | User-friendly? Leak no sensitive information? |
| Default values | Sensible defaults when optional fields omitted? |
Example finding:
// Before: Tax calculation uses wrong rounding
const tax = price * 0.08;
// After: Proper currency rounding
const tax = Math.round(price * 0.08 * 100) / 100;Step 5 - Performance Checklist
| Issue | What to Check |
| N+1 queries | Loops that make database calls should be batched |
| Unbounded loops | Maximum iterations, timeout protection |
| Memory leaks | Event listeners removed, streams closed, references cleared |
| Missing indexes | Queries filter/sort on indexed columns? |
| Large payloads | Pagination implemented? Response size bounded? |
Step 6 - Fix Immediately
Address findings before declaring completion:
- Make the fix
- Add test covering the issue (if not present)
- Re-run full test suite
- Re-run linter/type checker
Step 7 - Declare Results
Mandatory announcement:
Fresh-eyes complete. [N] issues found and fixed:
- [Brief description of each issue and fix]Include this even for zero findings—it proves execution.
Resistance Patterns to Reject
The following rationalizations must be explicitly rejected:
| Rationalization | Reality |
| "Tests are comprehensive" | Tests validate design, not correctness |
| "I'm confident it's correct" | Confidence is inversely correlated with bugs |
| "Partner is waiting" | 3 minutes now saves 3 hours debugging later |
| "Production is blocked" | Rushing causes the outages being rushed to fix |
| "Senior dev already approved" | They reviewed intent, not implementation details |
| "It's just a small change" | Small changes cause large outages |
These circumstances represent precisely when critical bugs escape into production.
Example
Starting fresh-eyes review of auth.ts, handler.ts, db.ts, api.ts (2-5 min).
[auth.ts] Found: userId interpolated into SQL string. Fixed: parameterized query.
[handler.ts] Found: off-by-one in pagination (< instead of <=). Fixed: changed operator.
[db.ts, api.ts] No issues.
Fresh-eyes complete. 2 issues found and fixed. Re-running tests... pass.Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

