review-fix
Skill0 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Take a single finding from an automated review (the reviewer agent, an external review bot, or a manual review.md line item) and set up a fully isolated workspace for fixing it: a dedicated worktree, a topic branch, and a one‑page plan in docs/plans/. This skill owns plan creation only. The agent then refines the plan, implements via TDD, runs verify, opens a PR, and lets the maintainer (or autonomous‑merge rule) merge. For each finding in scope: The agent (not this…
11 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nwiizo/ccswarmtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- davidvornholt/mail-mcptheir own version, first seen Nov 5, 2026
- davidvornholt/mailboxtheir own version, first seen Nov 5, 2026
- raine/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- 200iqlabs/shared-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 31, 2026
- pcode-xyz/simple-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use review.
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.
SentrySkillreview
Fixture review skill.
Also in 5 projects that use this
Other versions11 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 11
- nwiizo/ccswarm★ 156same name
- DasDigitaleMomentum/opencode-processing-skills★ 60same name
- enes-alatas/spool★ 48same name
- jhd3197/CachiBot★ 19same name
- EternallLight/tgc-skills★ 11same name
- 200iqlabs/shared-skills★ 4same name
- pcode-xyz/simple-skills★ 4same name
- davidvornholt/mail-mcp★ 2same name
- davidvornholt/mailbox★ 2same name
- raine/skills★ 2same name
1 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 repository45 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- plugin-v2/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- plugin-v2/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- .cursor/rules/agents.mdcCursor rule
- agentic-security-reviewSkill
- arc42-baselineSkill
- caveman-commitSkill
- caveman-helpSkill
- caveman-reviewSkill
- cavemanSkill
- create-goalSkill
- design-twiceSkill
- discovery-sprintSkill
- domain-contextSkill
- github-project-setupSkill
- grillSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- issue-breakdownSkill
- issue-draftSkill
- issue-pr-syncSkill
- new-adrSkill
- new-glossary-entrySkill
- orchestrateSkill
- portfolio-trackSkill
- product-pageSkill
- project-reviewSkill
- project-runSkill
- project-scaffoldingSkill
- quality-assuranceSkill
- quality-metricsSkill
- record-decisionSkill
- roadmap-managementSkill
- sales-cycleSkill
- specorator-designSkill
- specorator-improvementSkill
- specorator-onboardSkill
- stock-takingSkill
- tackle-issueSkill
- tdd-cycleSkill
- token-budget-reviewSkill
- tracer-bulletSkill
- ubiquitous-languageSkill
- verifySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 47
Run the verify gate (verify).
- Very specific: line 53
Wait for review approval + clean state, then merge per feedback_autonomous_merge.md.
- Distinctive: line 80
Do not close the source review issue or edit its body.
- Very specific: line 81
Do not batch multiple findings into one PR.
- Very specific: line 82
Do not force‑create the branch (-B).
- Distinctive: line 83
Do not start implementation in this skill.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 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
review-fix — turn a review finding into an isolated worktree + plan
Purpose
Take a single finding from an automated review (the reviewer agent, an external review bot, or a manual review.md line item) and set up a fully isolated workspace for fixing it: a dedicated worktree, a topic branch, and a one‑page plan in docs/plans/.
This skill owns plan creation only. The agent then refines the plan, implements via TDD, runs verify, opens a PR, and lets the maintainer (or autonomous‑merge rule) merge.
When to invoke
- The user names a specific finding ID (e.g.
R-API-007, or a sha7‑prefixed<sha7>.<idx>from an external review bot). - The user runs
/review-fix <id>— single‑finding mode. - The user runs
/review-fixwith no argument — sweep mode: process every still‑open finding from the most recent review.
Pre‑flight checks (refuse if any fail)
- The finding ID must exist in the source review artifact (
specs/<feature>/review.md, an open tracker issue with the review label, etc.). Refuse free‑text descriptions. - The finding must not already be marked shipped (
[x]and a PR/issue reference). - The target worktree path
.worktrees/fix-review-<slug>must not already exist. If it does, the prior fix is in flight — do not clobber. - The integration branch must be reachable.
git fetch originfirst.
How to use
For each finding in scope:
- Slugify the finding's headline into kebab‑case, max ~40 chars. Prefix with
review-for clarity. Create the worktree:
git worktree add .worktrees/fix-review-<slug> \ -b fix/review-<slug> origin/<integration-branch>- Bootstrap the worktree for the project (
npm ci,uv sync,bundle install, …). The verify skill assumes deps are installed. - Scaffold the plan at
docs/plans/<YYYY-MM-DD>-review-<slug>.mdusingtemplates/idea-template.mdadapted for a fix:- Finding: the original ID + verbatim quote.
- Diagnosis: what's wrong, with file:line references.
- Approach: the smallest change that fixes it.
- Test plan: the failing test that demonstrates the bug, then the fix.
- Risk + rollback: what could break, how to revert.
- Don't write code yet. Plan only. The agent reviews the plan with the user, then proceeds to TDD.
After the fix is implemented
The agent (not this skill) handles:
- Run the verify gate (
verify). - Open the PR; include the canonical magic line in the PR body so the source review can auto‑flip. Format must match exactly (single space after the
#<number>):
This is the same string theRefs #<review-issue-number> finding:<sha7>.<idx>review-bot/PROMPT.md"Auto‑flip on merge" section parses. Any deviation (Refs <name>, double space, missing#) breaks the auto‑flip. - Wait for review approval + clean state, then merge per
feedback_autonomous_merge.md.
Post‑merge cleanup
git worktree remove .worktrees/fix-review-<slug>
git branch -d fix/review-<slug> # from the main checkout
git worktree prune # if neededReporting
Single‑finding mode:
Set up fix for <id>:
worktree: .worktrees/fix-review-<slug>
branch: fix/review-<slug>
plan: docs/plans/<YYYY-MM-DD>-review-<slug>.md
Next: refine the plan, then implement via TDD inside the worktree.Sweep mode: one of the above blocks per finding, plus a count summary at the end.
Do not
- Do not close the source review issue or edit its body. The auto‑flip on merge handles that.
- Do not batch multiple findings into one PR. One finding, one PR — see
feedback_pr_hygiene.md. - Do not force‑create the branch (
-B). If the branch already exists, the prior fix is in flight. - Do not start implementation in this skill. Plan only.
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.

