swarm-review
Skill5 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Milestone review sweep — a strong model audits everything since the last sweep against the spec: requirement fulfillment, standards, simplification, risk. Use when a milestone's tickets are done, before opening the next milestone, or when asked to review/audit/validate completed work.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- babs/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- grimoire-rs/grimoire-vscodetheir own version, first seen Jul 25, 2026
- dralgorhythm/claude-agentic-frameworktheir own version, first seen Jul 24, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- dralgorhythm/claude-agentic-framework★ 118same name
- babs/skills★ 4same name
- grimoire-rs/grimoire-vscode★ 0same 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 repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- swarm-debugSkill
- swarm-design-deepSkill
- swarm-designSkill
- swarm-design-uiSkill
- swarm-ejectSkill
- swarm-flowSkill
- swarm-implementSkill
- swarm-initSkill
- swarm-migrateSkill
- swarm-orchestrateSkill
- swarm-skill-forgeSkill
- swarm-specSkill
- swarm-vaultSkill
- swarm-writeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
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 52
Update flow-state either way (J1).
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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.
Files
swarm-review — the milestone gate
Reviews against the spec, not just the code — that is the difference between this and a linter. Expect a top-tier model; warn if the session runs less. Milestone cadence only (token economy): not per-commit.
Scope: the milestone's diff (git log since last sweep), its tickets, and its FR specs.
The four lenses, in order
- Fulfillment (the one that matters most): every Must-FR of the milestone, individually — no sampling. Are the acceptance criteria actually met? Do the tests assert the criteria (not just execute the code)? Is the FR → ticket → commit → test chain intact?
- Standards: naming, error handling (exceptions handled, not swallowed), comment
discipline (light, constraint-stating), test quality (behavior asserted, not
implementation), commit hygiene — audited against swarm-implement's
references/clean-code.mdwhere available, including its dogma traps: fragment soup, one-implementation abstractions, pattern theater, and SRP shrapnel are findings, not compliance. End-user text shipped in the milestone (UI strings, README, release notes, marketing) is audited against the project'svoice.mdand the audience firewall — load swarm-write for the criteria. - Simplification: duplicated logic to merge, needless abstraction to delete, blocks that could be simpler or generalized. If a fix is obvious and small, still ticket it — see the rule below.
- Risk: input validation gaps, security smells, and a devil's-advocate pass — "what assumption, if wrong, hurts most?"
Findings
One per issue, compact (machine lane): severity (blocker/major/minor), FR link,
file:line evidence, concrete suggested fix. Write the report to
30 Plans/<P>/reviews/M<N>-sweep.md (human-lane summary + machine-lane findings), then
one ticket per accepted finding — findings that stay chat messages die in scrollback.
Never auto-fix. Reporting and fixing in the same pass corrupts the review; fixes are swarm-implement's job via the tickets.
Closing the gate
- Gated mode: present the report; the user decides what's waived; milestone closes on their word.
- Auto mode: the sweep IS the gate —
blocker/fulfillment findings must be fixed and re-swept before the next milestone opens; the user reads the report in the vault at their leisure. Minor findings may carry forward as open tickets.
Update flow-state either way (J1).
Influences: Pocock's code-review (two-axis); Jeffallan's code-reviewer & security-reviewer & the-fool; superpowers verification-before-completion; euxx code-simplifier — see CREDITS.md.
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.

