review-and-critique
Skill1 starsChanged 52 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when a code task reaches a meaningful milestone, before merging or publishing, or when an independent check is needed to find requirement, regression, test, or security issues.
In this repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- llms.txtllms.txt
- agentflow-osSkill
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- checkpoint-recoverySkill
- ci-cd-and-automationSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- debugging-and-error-recoverySkill
- frontend-ui-engineeringSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- interview-meSkill
- makecrewSkill
- parallel-dispatchSkill
- planning-and-task-breakdownSkill
- product-deliverySkill
- self-evolutionSkill
- shipping-and-launchSkill
- skill-auditSkill
- source-driven-developmentSkill
- task-intakeSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
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 10
Read the task goal, acceptance gates, changed files, and fresh test output.
- Distinctive: line 11
Check behavior, edge cases, regressions, error handling, security, and maintainability.
≈ “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
Review And Critique
Review the change against the task contract, not against personal preference.
- Read the task goal, acceptance gates, changed files, and fresh test output.
- Check behavior, edge cases, regressions, error handling, security, and maintainability. Inspect the smallest relevant diff; do not copy full employee histories into the review context.
- Report findings first, ordered by severity, with file and line evidence and a concrete fix. Separate open questions from confirmed findings.
- A critical or important finding blocks delivery until fixed or explicitly adjudicated. Re-run the focused check after each fix and the full suite before merge.
For a routine read-only query, skip this Skill. Use it at milestones so review cost buys a measurable quality signal rather than another full conversation.
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.