agentleFS
HorizonRoboticsHorizonRobotics/RoboOrchardLab/.agents/skills/codereview/SKILL.md

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.

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
  1. Very specific:

    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 …

    line 5
  2. Distinctive:

    Use for explicit review of a commit, branch diff, staged diff, working tree diff, patch, or local file set.

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Use for explicit GitHub PR or GitLab MR review when PR/MR-specific transport, metadata, or comment posting is required.

    line 17
  4. Distinctive:

    Use for explicit architecture review or for review/evaluation requests where layering, contracts, compatibility surfaces, abstractions, or …

    line 20
  5. Distinctive:

    If the target is a PR/MR or local changeset and the user explicitly asks for architecture review in addition to ordinary review dimensions, …

    line 24
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not use this family for:

    line 35
  7. Distinctive:

    Use the smallest review surface that satisfies the request.

    line 42
  8. Distinctive:

    Treat reviewer roles as logical review dimensions rather than mandatory agent slots.

    line 45

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.