scratch-review
Skill96 starsChanged 2 days agoMITView on GitHub
Review and refine a converged .scratch design, or review its implementation and save an evidence-based report.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- wowyuarm/dsh-agent-teamword for word, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- wowyuarm/dsh-agent-team★ 96100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- docs/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .scratch/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- ax-initSkill
- ax-reviewSkill
- codebase-ablationSkill
- codebase-designSkill
- diagnosing-bugsSkill
- discussionSkill
- grillingSkill
- researchSkill
- tddSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 22
If the repository has no .scratch work area, or the user supplied only a diff or ref, perform the requested review in the conversation.
- Distinctive: line 29
Implementation or delivery: follow references/implementation-review.md.
- Distinctive: line 31
If the user asks for both, refine the design first, then review the implementation against the revised spec.
- Distinctive: line 37
Use subagents, a workflow, or worker/helper delegation when independent investigation or review axes would benefit from parallel work.
≈ “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
scratch-review
Review a work item at the stage the user asks about. Design review improves the existing design materials; implementation review examines a fixed code range and leaves a report. Both verify findings against evidence rather than preferences.
1. Resolve the target
Accept a work-item directory or one of its issues/NN-<slug>.md files, optionally with a base ref for implementation review:
/scratch-review .scratch/active/<work>
/scratch-review .scratch/active/<work>/issues/02-<slug>.md --base mainRead the target's README.md, its design snapshot (spec.md, or DESIGN.md in older archives), and the selected ticket. For a work-item review, read all in-scope tickets and their status. Also read the work area's rules and the repository guidance applicable to the requested stage. Do not infer requirements from a branch name.
If the repository has no .scratch work area, or the user supplied only a diff or ref, perform the requested review in the conversation. Do not initialize .scratch or manufacture a work item just to store output.
2. Choose the procedure
The user's explicit request takes precedence over the work item's status. Otherwise, use the actual design and code state rather than relying on a status label alone.
- Converged design before implementation: follow references/design-review.md. Review the chosen shape, evidence, risks, ticket information readiness, and verification, then write confirmed improvements back into the existing design materials. Do not create a review report. If the design has not converged, report that state and stop rather than inventing a spec.
- Implementation or delivery: follow references/implementation-review.md. Review a coherent delivered set by default, check it against its spec and repository standards, run relevant checks, and save a report in the work item. Implementation review does not mark Human acceptance or close tickets.
If the user asks for both, refine the design first, then review the implementation against the revised spec. An ambiguous stage that would materially change the output requires a clarifying question.
Neither procedure modifies production code, checks off acceptance criteria, marks implementation work complete, or closes the work item.
3. Delegate deliberately
Use subagents, a workflow, or worker/helper delegation when independent investigation or review axes would benefit from parallel work. Give each worker a bounded assignment, the exact target and source locations, and a requirement to return evidence rather than general impressions. Keep workers read-only.
The lead reviewer verifies candidate findings, reconciles the results, and performs all permitted edits or writes the single report. Work sequentially when delegation is unavailable or the target is small; do not paste unverified worker reports together.
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.