agentleFS
Sign inStart free
Agenta-AIAgenta-AI/agenta/.agents/skills/review-correctness/SKILL.md

review-correctness

Skill4.9k starsChanged 4 months agoLicence not identifiedView on GitHub

Review one code change for correctness and rate it Low, Medium, or High. Looks for bugs, regressions in existing behavior, broken flows, concurrency and retry problems, and migrations that can fail or lose data. Use when asked to "review this PR for bugs", "check this diff for regressions", "is this change correct", or when a review loop runs the correctness lens. Read-only; it reports findings and does not fix them.

6 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 25: 0 new projectsWeek of Nov 1: 0 new projects
Sep 2026Oct 2026Nov 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 0 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

Most recently taken up by

Who's talking about Agenta-AI/agenta

The biggest 5 of 53 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 53

Talked about on GitHub and Bluesky (53 times).

On GitHub · 50

45 more on GitHub

Used with

Projects with it also use review-architecture.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • MrCipherSmithSkill

    review-architecture

    Use when: reviewing code for architectural violations — layer violations, dependency direction mistakes, module boundary coupling, SOLID principle breaches, NestJS module/provider structure, React MVVM boundary violations, or MobX store layer misplacement. Triggered by: "review architecture", "check architecture", "architectural review", or dispatched by review-orchestrator with --architecture or --backend. NOT for: style/naming preferences, logic correctness bugs, or security vulnerabilities.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

The licence could not be identified — read it at the source. We count its rules but don't quote them. Read them on GitHub.

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free