review-change
Skill1 starsChanged 34 days agoMITView on GitHub
Independently challenge an implementation from its specification and diff, looking for counterexamples, regressions, untested consumers and tests that pass for the wrong reason. Use for code review or independent QA, not author self-checks. Returns findings without fixing code.
29 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- EpicGames/loretheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- SaKaNa-Y/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Krzysztof318/MailFathomtheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- 0xdeafcafe/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- CsHeng/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- Esri/calcite-design-systemtheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use plan-change, implement-change and 7 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.
BanKnightSkillplan-change
将已完成 spec/design 的 change 拆成可执行 plan 与 tasks。用户要把设计落成执行计划、任务清单或实现步骤时使用。
Also in 7 projects that use this
Codagent-AISkillimplement-change
Implements an approved change in one continuous session, with tiered test runs. Use when asked to implement a change from its approved definition, or to invoke codagent:implement-change.
Also in 7 projects that use this
MaheshAwasareSkillwrite-runbook
Generate an operational runbook for a service from its code, config, and dependencies — what to do when it breaks, where to look, how to roll back, who to escalate to. Use proactively before a service goes to production, after a major incident, or when handing off operational ownership.
Also in 3 projects that use this
testified-ossSkillincident-triage
Triage production incidents with severity assessment, root cause hypothesis, impact analysis, and escalation recommendations. Use when analyzing outages, errors, or production issues.
Also in 4 projects that use this
srclightSkillrefactor-safely
This skill should be used when the user asks to "refactor", "rename", "move", "change a function signature", "extract a method", "delete unused code", "clean up", or any modification that could break callers or dependents. Provides a pre-change safety checklist using srclight's graph tools to assess blast radius before touching code.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Google CloudSkillopen-pr
Commits local changes to a new Git branch and opens a GitHub pull request through the configured GitHub MCP server. Use when proposing code changes in a new pull request. Don't use for local-only commits without a remote GitHub repository.
Also in 4 projects that use this
Other versions29 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- Greg-Klein/implementation-harness★ 1100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 28
- ben-manes/caffeine★ 18ksame name
- EpicGames/lore★ 9.1ksame name
- maypok86/otter★ 2.7ksame name
- aquaproj/aqua-registry★ 398same name
- Esri/calcite-design-system★ 385same name
- yiming-liao/intor★ 211same name
- gtrabanco/agentic-workflow★ 23same name
- fathomise/MailFathom★ 21same name
- Krzysztof318/MailFathom★ 21same name
- Indium-AI-Labs/indium-agentkit★ 18same name
18 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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- clarify-specSkill
- collect-evidenceSkill
- document-changeSkill
- figma-reviewSkill
- gh-github-apiSkill
- gitlab-ticketsSkill
- glab-gitlab-apiSkill
- howSkill
- self-checkSkill
- unslopSkill
- whySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 24 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 16
After the initial analysis, consult author reports to reconcile omissions, reuse setup and check claimed results.
- Very specific: line 22
Use collect-evidence only for execution mechanics after independently choosing checks.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 24 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
Independent review
Input: authoritative requirements and decisions, diff or changed scope, current code, review depth, and permitted tools. Return an evidence-backed review. Do not modify product code, fix tests, publish comments or infer permission to do so.
Establish an independent basis
Before reading developer conclusions, self-check reports, prior verdicts or an author-provided mental model, derive your own expected behavior and plausible failure cases from the specification, consumers and current code. Record this initial basis in the eventual review report. A planner's solution is not a specification. If the caller already disclosed the diagnosis, state that exposure and deliberately test an alternative explanation; do not claim a blind review.
Choose the applicable method: code-review.md for code review, behavioral-qa.md for independent QA. Do not run both by default.
After the initial analysis, consult author reports to reconcile omissions, reuse setup and check claimed results. Inspect their sources rather than treating their agreement as corroboration. Reusing a fixture does not require trusting its oracle; challenge stubs that predetermine the result.
You may use how for an unfamiliar behavior, or why before treating unusual compatibility as unnecessary. Their results explain behavior and history; they do not decide correctness. Independently check consequential anchors. Respect why's required how dependency.
Evidence and completion
Use collect-evidence only for execution mechanics after independently choosing checks. A passed author-selected suite is useful evidence, not a complete review. Do not use the author's self-check method as your review plan.
Each finding states the violated requirement or contract, concrete trigger, expected and actual behavior, affected consumer, evidence and impact. Distinguish reproduced defects from static findings and unknowns. Do not invent findings to meet a quota; no findings is a valid outcome.
Follow the caller's severity and output contract, and write findings with implementation-factory:unslop. Return initial review basis, findings, checks and limits. When the caller is a corrective reviewer, finish this diagnostic phase before it applies fixes under its own role. A correction requires fresh validation; it does not prove its own correctness.
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.

