codereview-family
Skill180 starsChanged 9 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Structured code review family for explicit heavy review requests and architecture-sensitive review/evaluation requests. Route to PR/MR review, local changeset review, or architecture review based on the review target and intent. Do not use for routine self-checks or casual bug scans.
In this repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- feature-devSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
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 5
Use this skill family when the user explicitly asks for a heavy review flow, or when the task is already a review/evaluation request and …
- Distinctive: line 14
Use for explicit review of a commit, branch diff, staged diff, working tree diff, patch, or local file set.
- Distinctive: line 17
Use for explicit GitHub PR or GitLab MR review when PR/MR-specific transport, metadata, or comment posting is required.
- Distinctive: line 20
Use for explicit architecture review or for review/evaluation requests where layering, contracts, compatibility surfaces, abstractions, or …
- Distinctive: line 24
If the target is a PR/MR or local changeset and the user explicitly asks for architecture review in addition to ordinary review dimensions, …
- Distinctive: line 35
Do not use this family for:
- Distinctive: line 42
Use the smallest review surface that satisfies the request.
- Distinctive: line 45
Treat reviewer roles as logical review dimensions rather than mandatory agent slots.
≈ “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
Use this skill family when the user explicitly asks for a heavy review flow, or when the task is already a review/evaluation request and the auto-trigger rules in references/triggering-and-signal.md select a heavy review path.
Read references/triggering-and-signal.md and
references/review-depth-and-delegation.md first. When preparing a final
report, also use references/report-composition.md.
Then route to the smallest sub-skill that matches the target:
changeset-codereview/Use for explicit review of a commit, branch diff, staged diff, working tree diff, patch, or local file set.prmr-codereview/Use for explicit GitHub PR or GitLab MR review when PR/MR-specific transport, metadata, or comment posting is required.architecture-review/Use for explicit architecture review or for review/evaluation requests where layering, contracts, compatibility surfaces, abstractions, or public API design are the main question.
If the target is a PR/MR or local changeset and the user explicitly asks for
architecture review in addition to ordinary review dimensions, or if the
reviewed scope materially changes layering, ownership boundaries, dependency
direction, compatibility/public surfaces, or other architecture-review
dimensions, keep prmr-codereview or changeset-codereview as the active
skill. For PR/MR reviews, the delegated changeset-codereview workflow owns
applying any paired architecture-review/ dimensions. A paired skill is a
logical report input and normally shares the same review subagent. In both
cases, the active skill owns the main report and must summarize the paired
architecture results in Related review inputs.
Do not use this family for:
- routine implementation self-checks
- quick bug scans during development
- ordinary debugging
- style-only or taste-only feedback
Use the smallest review surface that satisfies the request. The heavier the workflow, the more explicit the user request should be.
Treat reviewer roles as logical review dimensions rather than mandatory agent
slots. Follow references/review-depth-and-delegation.md: explicit heavy
review defaults to at most one active review subagent per review round, while
the main agent owns scope, guidance discovery, validation, convergence, and
reporting. A review loop may use multiple reviewers sequentially, but each new
issue-discovery round must start with a fresh reviewer. Use parallel reviewers
within one round only when the user explicitly requests them or a stated
high-risk scope justifies independent review.
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.

