coderabbit
Skill0 starsChanged 15 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Review changes and handle CodeRabbit/Greptile/Bugbot/GitHub feedback. Triggers: review, comments, security.
- Pipes a download into a shell
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Receipt-Wrangler/receipt-wranglertheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- dmythro/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lgtm-hq/ai-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- roedyrustam/vibes-plugtheir own version, first seen Oct 5, 2026
- gannonh/skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 24, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- Receipt-Wrangler/receipt-wrangler★ 297same name
- roedyrustam/vibes-plug★ 75same name
- dmythro/agent-skills★ 7same name
- gannonh/skills★ 2same name
- lgtm-hq/ai-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 repository64 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- verify-lead-waitSkill
- verify-merge-receiptsSkill
- branded-docSkill
- explanatory-docSkill
- 1passwordSkill
- agada-benchSkill
- agent-browserSkill
- agent-routingSkill
- architectural-conformance-auditSkill
- audio-dashboardSkill
- brain-store-fallbackSkill
- claude-desktop-researchSkill
- cmux-agentsSkill
- cmuxSkill
- coachSkill
- codex-workflowsSkill
- collab-monitorSkill
- content-demo-creationSkill
- convention-auditSkill
- cursor-workflowsSkill
- cyberSkill
- deploy-verifySkill
- drive-filingSkill
- eas-prebuild-checkSkill
- ecosystem-healthSkill
- eli5Skill
- false-green-gateSkill
- figma-loopSkill
- fleet-wrap-gateSkill
- fleet-wrapSkill
- frustration-captureSkill
- gemini-researchSkill
- git-guardianSkill
- github-researchSkill
- golem-installSkill
- grill-meSkill
- heredoc-guardSkill
- html-dashboardSkill
- human-confirm-gateSkill
- i-have-adhdSkill
- install-runbook-linterSkill
- large-planSkill
- m1-window-gateSkill
- model-pin-gateSkill
- never-fabricateSkill
- orcSkill
- plan-councilSkill
- pr-loopSkill
- qa-verdict-gateSkill
- qa-videoSkill
- repogolemSkill
- research-lifecycleSkill
- reviewer-order-gateSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- stitch-designSkill
- t3-visualsSkill
- tmp-blockSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
7
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 58
If issues found → Fix before Claude verification
- Distinctive: line 59
If clean → Proceed to full Claude verification
- Distinctive: line 70
Read the complete feedback before reacting.
- Distinctive: line 72
Verify the finding against codebase reality.
- Distinctive: line 83
Instead, state the technical requirement, ask a clarifying question, or fix it silently.
- Distinctive: line 100
Test each fix individually and verify no regressions.
- Distinctive: line 162
Must run from git repository root
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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
CodeRabbit - AI Code Review
Fast AI code reviews via CodeRabbit CLI. Free for open source.
Repositories
Works in any git repo. Free tier covers open source repos. For private repos, ensure CodeRabbit is configured in the repo settings.
Quick Commands
coderabbit review --agent # Codex/AI-agent local review output
cr review --plain # Human-readable review
cr review --prompt-only # Minimal-token prompt output for specific workflows
cr review --type uncommitted # Only unstaged changes
cr review --base main # Compare against main branchLocal Review Gate (Codex)
In Codex environments, use coderabbit review --agent (not --plain) for the local review gate.
Bound the local CLI wait: hard timeout at about 3 minutes. If the CLI hangs while writing comments, hits a rate limit, or reports review-limit exhaustion mid-loop, kill/stop it, record the limitation, and proceed through commit/push on fresh local test evidence. Do not block the PR loop indefinitely on a local CLI hang. After the PR exists, request @coderabbitai review and read the resulting bot status/comments before merge.
Workflows
| Workflow | Use Case |
| review | Standard code review |
| verify | Quick verification for Ralph V-* stories |
| security | Security-focused review |
| accessibility | A11y audit for UI changes |
| secrets | Scan for hardcoded secrets/keys |
| pr-ready | Pre-PR comprehensive check |
| red-team | Adversarial security/reliability review profile |
| blue-team | Architecture/quality/maintainability review profile |
Output Modes
| Flag | Best For | Token Usage |
--agent | Codex/AI agents running a local gate | Medium |
--plain | Humans reading in terminal | High |
--prompt-only | AI agents (Ralph, Claude) | Low |
| (default) | Interactive TUI | N/A |
Integration with Ralph
For V-* verification stories, CodeRabbit runs FIRST as a fast pre-check:
cr review --prompt-only --type committed- Quick scan- If issues found → Fix before Claude verification
- If clean → Proceed to full Claude verification
This reduces Claude API costs and catches obvious issues fast.
Receiving Review Feedback
Technical evaluation, not emotional performance. Verify before implementing. Push back when a suggestion is wrong for this codebase.
Response pattern:
- Read the complete feedback before reacting.
- Understand the requested change; restate it or ask if unclear.
- Verify the finding against codebase reality.
- Evaluate whether it is technically sound for this stack and user decision.
- Respond with a technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback.
- Implement one item at a time and test each fix.
Forbidden responses:
- "You're absolutely right!"
- "Great point!"
- "Thanks for catching that!"
Instead, state the technical requirement, ask a clarifying question, or fix it silently.
| Comment type | Action |
| Real bug / Security | Fix immediately |
| Important improvement | Fix before proceeding |
| Style preference | Fix if genuinely better; skip if bikeshed |
| Over-engineering | Skip with reasoning |
| False positive | Skip with reasoning |
Implementation order for multi-item feedback:
- Clarify anything unclear first.
- Fix blocking breakage or security issues.
- Apply simple fixes.
- Apply complex refactors or logic changes.
- Test each fix individually and verify no regressions.
Max 3 review-fix rounds for nitpicks. Push back when the suggestion breaks existing behavior, lacks context, violates YAGNI, conflicts with user-stated architecture, or is technically incorrect. If you were wrong, say "Checked X and you're correct. Fixing." Then fix it.
Evaluator Agent (Weighted Quality Gate)
For high-stakes changes, pair CodeRabbit with the evaluator agent (claude --agent evaluator) for deeper qualitative scoring:
- CodeRabbit catches structural issues (bugs, security, style)
- Evaluator scores on 4 weighted criteria: Functionality (20%), Craft (20%), Design (30%), Originality (30%)
- Score >= 7.0 required to proceed to merge
The evaluator is deliberately adversarial -- it compensates for LLM optimism bias in code review. See $ORCHESTRATOR_REPO/standards/evaluator-grading.md for the full grading rubric.
When to add the evaluator gate:
- Architecture changes or new module introductions
- Agent-generated code (autonomous work products)
- Changes touching >5 files or crossing module boundaries
Configuration
Optional .coderabbit.yaml in repo root for custom rules:
reviews:
language: en
path_filters:
- "!**/*.test.ts"
- "!**/node_modules/**"Disposition gate — no silent skip, every CRITICAL dispositioned (gen-18 Track 6 D5)
Two false-green failure modes the review flow must never hit:
- Silent-skip — when the CodeRabbit CLI is rate-limited / times out / is unavailable,
do NOT move on as if "no findings". Record
Status: SKIPPED — <reason>and fall back to the red-team / blue-team prompt review (references/red-team-prompt.md,references/blue-team-prompt.md). A skip without a reason is a violation. - Undisposed CRITICAL — every CRITICAL finding must carry an explicit
FIXED/WAIVED/ACCEPTEDdisposition before push. A CRITICAL with no disposition silently ships.
Gate it mechanically with a review-disposition log:
python3 checks/disposition_lint_cli.py review-disposition-log.md # exit 1 on any gap
python3 -m pytest checks/tests/ # RED→GREEN gate (8 cases)A disposition log is a Status: line plus one line per finding
(- CRITICAL: <desc> — FIXED (rationale)). The RED fixture (a bare SKIPPED + an
undisposed CRITICAL) trips both rules; the GREEN fixture is clean. See
checks/disposition_lint.py.
Requirements
- CodeRabbit CLI installed:
curl -fsSL https://cli.coderabbit.ai/install.sh | sh - Authenticated:
cr auth login - Must run from git repository root
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.

