code-review
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when completing a task, reviewing a branch or PR, before merging, when the user asks to 'review since X', when publishing a GitHub PR review with inline comments/suggestions, or when the user receives code review feedback and needs to decide how to act on it.
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 repository110 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/project-bootstrap/templates/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- a11y-auditSkill
- agentic-ragSkill
- agent-reachSkill
- ai3d-genSkill
- ai-coding-dictionarySkill
- ai-toolsSkill
- animation-directionSkill
- api-specSkill
- architecture-diagramsSkill
- architectureSkill
- ascii-artSkill
- ask-bundleSkill
- binary-triageSkill
- bragSkill
- brag-slimSkill
- career-opsSkill
- computer-useSkill
- context7Skill
- context-hygieneSkill
- creative-engineeringSkill
- cu-realtimeSkill
- data-analystSkill
- databaseSkill
- dead-wireSkill
- debuggingSkill
- deploySkill
- devin-configSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- dmaSkill
- dockerSkill
- drift-reportSkill
- e2e-testingSkill
- edge-casesSkill
- executionSkill
- fact-checkSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- firmware-probeSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- gatesSkill
- ghidraSkill
- ghSkill
- github-actionsSkill
- git-workflowsSkill
- grillingSkill
- handoffSkill
- humanizerSkill
- hyperframesSkill
- i18nSkill
- image-forensicsSkill
- impeccableSkill
- implement-layaSkill
- intakeSkill
- jiraSkill
- knowledge-modelingSkill
- laya-orchestratorSkill
- learn-modeSkill
- mcp-governanceSkill
- media-toolsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 184 edited versions we read keep these.
6
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 25
Every finding cites file:line and the rule it violates.
- Distinctive: line 26
Verify claims with tools before reporting — no "looks fine" without evidence.
- Distinctive: line 36
Don't edit the PR's code locally.
- Very specific: line 38
Every comment gets a gate in the ledger (see gates).
- Distinctive: line 42
Verify before implementing.
- Distinctive: line 45
READ the feedback completely without reacting.
- Distinctive: line 47
VERIFY against codebase reality.
“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
Code Review
Six modes; full detail in modes/<mode>.md. Read it when you enter the
mode. code-reviewer.md is the reviewer subagent brief.
| Mode | When | Detail |
| Giving | Completing a task, reviewing a branch/PR, before merge, "review since X" | modes/giving.md |
| PR-inline | Publishing a GitHub review with inline ```suggestion comments | modes/pr-inline.md |
| Receiving | Deciding how to act on review feedback you received | modes/receiving.md |
| PR-audit | Auditing an untrusted contributor PR before merge: claim verification, prompt-injection resistance, hostile-change and supply-chain review | modes/pr-audit.md |
| Post-merge audit | Auditing the combined default-branch tree after merges, before deploy/release | modes/post-merge-audit.md |
| Dependency bumps | Fast-path merge of bot-authored dependency-only PRs | modes/dependency-bumps.md |
Giving — essentials
- Review the diff against the spec, not your memory of it.
- Two-axis review where the repo defines it (Standards vs Spec).
- Every finding cites file:line and the rule it violates.
- Verify claims with tools before reporting — no "looks fine" without evidence.
- Independent reviewer subagent (
reviewer/qa-ci) for unbiased assessment on high-risk diffs.
PR-inline — essentials
- Cycle: CHECK → COMMENT/SUGGEST → NEXT. One concern per cycle; never post before confirming the target line in the PR head.
gh apiwith--fieldfor per-line positioning (notgh pr review).```suggestionblocks must be applicable in one click.- Don't edit the PR's code locally; comments only.
- Comment language follows the repository.
- Every comment gets a gate in the ledger (see
gates).
Receiving — essentials
Verify before implementing; ask before assuming; technical correctness over social comfort.
- READ the feedback completely without reacting.
- UNDERSTAND — restate the requirement or ask.
- VERIFY against codebase reality.
- EVALUATE — technically sound for THIS codebase?
- RESPOND — technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback.
- IMPLEMENT — one item at a time, test each.
Classify each item: pushed (reviewer cites a concrete violation → verify against the cited source, fix, test) vs pulled (reviewer points to a skill/convention/gate you should have used → pull that source first, apply, verify). Repeated missing pulled patterns → add to your pre-review checklist.
Cross-skills
security— escalate to the security skill when the diff touches auth, secrets, input handling, or public endpoints.a11y-audit— escalate when the diff touches frontend markup/ARIA/keyboard paths.
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.