code-review
Skill4 starsChanged 19 days agoMITView on GitHub
Review a change with independent read-only reviewers on requirements, project standards, and correctness. Use for a branch, a pull request, uncommitted work, or the review step of /work.
194 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- doggy8088/spec-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- strelov1/freehiretheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- storybookjs/storybooktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- supabase/supabasetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- The-Vibe-Company/quivrtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use close-spec, design-with-images and 10 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.
dzhngSkillclose-spec
When a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes) and [review](../review/SKILL.md) (run before closing).
Also in 5 projects that use this
- dzhngSkill
design-with-images
Explore UI and visual design with image generation, then iterate the real implementation against the user-selected concept. Use when brainstorming visual directions, offering mockup variants, or implementing an approved generated design; do not stop at the mockups or the first code approximation.
Also in 5 projects that use this
PydanticSkilladd-new-model
Add support for a newly-released language or image generation model in pydantic-ai (e.g. openai:gpt-5.6, anthropic:claude-sonnet-5, openai:gpt-image-2). Use when a provider ships a new model id and you need to wire literals, profile flags, adapters, and tests to recognize it. Handles SDK-lag, gateway list conventions, capability probing, and direct image-model geometry.
Also in 9 projects that use this
transitive-bullshitSkillcompare-screenshots
Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.
Also in 5 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillazsdk-common-apiview-feedback-resolution
Analyze and resolve APIView review feedback on Azure SDK PRs. **UTILITY SKILL**. USE FOR: APIView comments, API review feedback, SDK API surface changes. DO NOT USE FOR: general code review, non-APIView feedback. INVOKES: azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_apiview_get_comments, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_customized_code_update, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_typespec_delegate_apiview_feedback, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_run_typespec_validation, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_package_generate_code.
Also in 6 projects that use this
- Microsoft AzureSkill
azsdk-common-generate-sdk-locally
Generate and finalize Azure SDKs locally from TypeSpec, including build, checks, tests, changelog, metadata, and version updates by default. WHEN: "generate SDK locally", "build SDK", "run SDK tests", "run CI checks", "validate package", "run checks", "update changelog", "fix SDK build errors", "resolve SDK generation errors", "customize TypeSpec", "rename SDK client", "rename SDK model", "hide operation from SDK", "fix analyzer errors", "resolve customization drift", "create subclient", "update metadata", "update version". INVOKES: azsdk_verify_setup, azsdk_package_generate_code, azsdk_package_build_code, azsdk_package_run_check, azsdk_package_run_tests, azsdk_customized_code_update, azsdk_package_update_changelog_content, azsdk_package_update_metadata, azsdk_package_update_version.
Also in 6 projects that use this
- +4 more from dzhng
- +2 more from Azure
Other versions194 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 194
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- TheAlgorithms/Python★ 226ksame name
- microsoft/vscode★ 195ksame name
- github/spec-kit★ 149ksame name
- ggml-org/llama.cpp★ 134ksame name
- supabase/supabase★ 115ksame name
- storybookjs/storybook★ 91ksame name
- shareAI-lab/analysis_claude_code★ 80ksame name
- shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code★ 80ksame name
- vectorize-io/hindsight★ 60ksame name
184 more not listed
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 repository39 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- authoringSkill
- chrome-devtoolsSkill
- gamificationSkill
- imagegenSkill
- improve-architectureSkill
- instructionsSkill
- monorepoSkill
- reverse-engineerSkill
- runbookSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- setup-harnessSkill
- skillsSkill
- unslopSkill
- video-reportSkill
- youtube-transcriptSkill
- debugSkill
- interviewSkill
- prototypeSkill
- researchSkill
- workSkill
- adsenseSkill
- astryxSkill
- cloudflare-cliSkill
- dokploy-best-practicesSkill
- extract-themeSkill
- nextjsSkill
- payload-cmsSkill
- shadersSkill
- swrSkill
- tanstack-querySkill
- tanstack-routerSkill
- tanstack-startSkill
- tanstack-storeSkill
- tauriSkill
- vite-plusSkill
- web-assets-optimizationSkill
- web-extensionSkill
- zodSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 184 edited versions we read keep these.
2
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 36
Treat each finding as a hypothesis: open the location, check the cited rule or the failure scenario, and classify it confirmed, needs …
- Distinctive: line 52
Done: every dispatched axis returned or is reported unavailable, and every finding is verified.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 184 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
Review a change independently
Return verified findings, not edits. The caller owns corrections, tests, and delivery; review authorizes no publication.
1. Fix what is reviewed
Identify the repository, the requirements (the Linear issue and the accepted
decisions, including the project's), and the exact comparison: base commit, head,
and any uncommitted or untracked files that belong to the change. Ask when the
base or the change's ownership is ambiguous rather than assume main. Keep
unrelated local work and secrets out of the review. Do not stage, commit, stash, or switch branches to obtain a diff, and
pause edits until the review returns.
2. Dispatch one reviewer per axis
| Axis | Compares the change with | Looks for |
| Requirements | The issue and the accepted decisions | Missing, partial, wrong, or out-of-scope behavior |
| Standards | The project's instructions and documented conventions | Concrete violations with real impact |
| Correctness | The code, its callers, tests, and contracts | Bugs, regressions, failure handling, security and privacy risks |
Give each reviewer a fresh context and the reviewer brief, with the comparison and sources but not the author's reasoning or other reviewers' findings. Without requirements, report that axis as unavailable instead of inferring intent from the code. Without delegation, review the axes one at a time yourself and say that independence was lost.
3. Verify and report
Treat each finding as a hypothesis: open the location, check the cited rule or the failure scenario, and classify it confirmed, needs evidence, or rejected with a reason. Set priority from impact (P0 urgent to P3 low). Keep optional suggestions apart; unfamiliar style is not a defect, and linters own formatting.
Report one section per axis, each confirmed finding with its location, the rule or failure scenario, its impact, and a bounded fix. End each axis with its most serious finding, or "none found" with what was not covered. "None found" proves neither correctness nor passing tests.
4. Re-review corrections
Given the previous findings and the correction, check that each finding is resolved and that the correction broke nothing it touches. Do not turn a re-review into a fresh audit of unrelated code.
Done: every dispatched axis returned or is reported unavailable, and every finding is verified. A review without independence is reported as such, never as an independent pass.
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.