agentleFS
Sign inStart free
CodeWithBehnamCodeWithBehnam/cc-docs/skills/productivity/document-review/SKILL.md

document-review

Skill2 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

This skill should be used to refine brainstorm or plan documents before proceeding to the next workflow step. It applies when a brainstorm or plan document exists and the user wants to improve it.

11 other projects use a version of this, 4 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use setup, skill-creator and 1 more.

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.
  • VercelSkill

    setup

    Set up Vercel CLI and project configuration. Use when the user says "set up Vercel", "configure Vercel", "link to Vercel", or "vercel init".

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    skill-creator

    Create new agent skills following the Agent Skills specification. Use when asked to "create a skill", "add a new skill", "write a skill", "make a skill", "build a skill", or scaffold a new skill with SKILL.md. Guides through requirements, writing, registration, and verification.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • GoogleSkill

    code-review

    Adversarial systems, concurrency, memory-model, and architecture code review protocol. Use this skill whenever asked to review code, PRs, diffs, or branches in Filament.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. 9 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 9

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    If a document path is provided: Read it, then proceed to Step 2.

    line 12
  2. Very specific:

    If no document is specified: Ask which document to review, or look for the most recent brainstorm/plan in docs/brainstorms/ or docs/plans/.

    line 14
  3. Common:

    Read through the document and ask:

    line 18
  4. Very specific:

    If invoked within a workflow (after /ce:brainstorm or /ce:plan), also check:

    line 39
  5. Distinctive:

    Ask approval: before substantive changes (restructuring, removing sections, changing meaning)

    line 51
  6. Common:

    After changes are complete, ask:

    line 71
  7. Common:

    Review complete: - Document is ready

    line 74
  8. Common:

    After 2 refinement passes, recommend completion—diminishing returns are likely.

    line 78
  9. Common:

    Do not rewrite the entire document

    line 84
  10. Common:

    Do not add new sections or requirements the user didn't discuss

    line 85
  11. Common:

    Do not over-engineer or add complexity

    line 86
  12. Common:

    Do not create separate review files or add metadata sections

    line 87

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Document Review

Improve brainstorm or plan documents through structured review.

Step 1: Get the Document

If a document path is provided: Read it, then proceed to Step 2.

If no document is specified: Ask which document to review, or look for the most recent brainstorm/plan in docs/brainstorms/ or docs/plans/.

Step 2: Assess

Read through the document and ask:

  • What is unclear?
  • What is unnecessary?
  • What decision is being avoided?
  • What assumptions are unstated?
  • Where could scope accidentally expand?

These questions surface issues. Don't fix yet—just note what you find.

Step 3: Evaluate

Score the document against these criteria:

CriterionWhat to Check
ClarityProblem statement is clear, no vague language ("probably," "consider," "try to")
CompletenessRequired sections present, constraints stated, open questions flagged
SpecificityConcrete enough for next step (brainstorm → can plan, plan → can implement)
YAGNINo hypothetical features, simplest approach chosen

If invoked within a workflow (after /ce:brainstorm or /ce:plan), also check:

  • User intent fidelity — Document reflects what was discussed, assumptions validated

Step 4: Identify the Critical Improvement

Among everything found in Steps 2-3, does one issue stand out? If something would significantly improve the document's quality, this is the "must address" item. Highlight it prominently.

Step 5: Make Changes

Present your findings, then:

  1. Auto-fix minor issues (vague language, formatting) without asking
  2. Ask approval before substantive changes (restructuring, removing sections, changing meaning)
  3. Update the document inline—no separate files, no metadata sections

Simplification Guidance

Simplification is purposeful removal of unnecessary complexity, not shortening for its own sake.

Simplify when:

  • Content serves hypothetical future needs, not current ones
  • Sections repeat information already covered elsewhere
  • Detail exceeds what's needed to take the next step
  • Abstractions or structure add overhead without clarity

Don't simplify:

  • Constraints or edge cases that affect implementation
  • Rationale that explains why alternatives were rejected
  • Open questions that need resolution

Step 6: Offer Next Action

After changes are complete, ask:

  1. Refine again - Another review pass
  2. Review complete - Document is ready

Iteration Guidance

After 2 refinement passes, recommend completion—diminishing returns are likely. But if the user wants to continue, allow it.

Return control to the caller (workflow or user) after selection.

What NOT to Do

  • Do not rewrite the entire document
  • Do not add new sections or requirements the user didn't discuss
  • Do not over-engineer or add complexity
  • Do not create separate review files or add metadata sections

Download now (ZIP)

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