agentleFS
LuisoteeLuisotee/agent-mesh/skills/delegate-review/SKILL.md

delegate-review

Skill0 starsChanged 16 days agoMITView on GitHub

agent-mesh: gets a pull request reviewed by other agents (Claude, agy, Copilot), each inside the PR's repo at the PR head; they change and post nothing, and you get their findings merged and checked against the code. Defaults to the current branch's PR and to reviewers by the PR's size, the CLIs installed and agy's quota (this machine's policy: `mesh routing`), the same ones again for a re-review of a fix, all run by one command that wakes you once; `all` is every installed one. Use it, typed or not, for any PR review the user asks for, their own included ("review my PR", "have Copilot review PR 42", "second opinion from Gemini and GPT"). Gemini, Flash, Argon → agy; GPT, Copilot → copilot; Opus, Sonnet, Fable → claude. Not for the reviews a `/delegate-*` run gives its own workers' PRs, or a mesh worker (your task came by a `📬 [mesh]` doorbell).

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. oubakiou/delegate-skills★ 3same name

    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 repository7 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    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:

    You are Claude Code: run it with run_in_background.

    line 29

≈ “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

/delegate-review

Get a review for the user's request: $ARGUMENTS when the user typed the command, otherwise the request that brought you here.

  1. The PR: the link or number given. Otherwise the current branch's PR (gh pr view --json url -q .url). If there is none, ask the user which PR.
  2. The reviewers: every CLI named, in any order (vendor words as in the description), as a comma list (claude,copilot), or all for all three. With none named, auto: mesh picks by the size (step 3), what is installed and the quotas, from review.reviewers.<size> (mesh routing shows them), and says on stderr what it picked and why. A PR gets at most review.rounds.<size> rounds, a ceiling, not a quota: a round with nothing you agree with to fix ends its reviews, and after the last one's fix check the fix commits yourself (git diff <reviewed head>..<new head>) rather than asking for a re-review, unless the user asks for one. A re-review after a fix (the user asks you to look again at a PR these reviewers already reviewed, or a fix before a PR's last round) is the same command again: auto asks the same reviewers again by review.re_review (by default without Copilot, whose credits are kept for first looks at the PRs that matter).
  3. The size: small for a PR of up to a few hundred lines in a few files (gh pr view <PR> --json additions,deletions,changedFiles), large for anything bigger or riskier (auth, money, data migrations). Every reviewer gets the same size. The size picks the plan phase and the level of a Claude reviewer's /code-review (review.level.<size>); Claude and agy reviewers run at review.effort either way, each in a pane beside you.
  4. Run them from the local checkout of the PR's repo (the current one, or ask the user where it is), all in one command, a review round:

    mesh ask --repo <checkout> --review <PR> --size <size> --reviewers <auto | claude,agy,copilot (the named ones) | all>
    • It starts a run if there is none, runs every reviewer at once, waits until each has answered or alerted, prints one line per reviewer and the path of one answers file (answers: …), and closes the reviewers that answered. Read that file, not their inboxes.
    • You are Claude Code: run it with run_in_background; its notification is the whole round. You are agy: run it in the foreground.
    • Copilot runs headless inside the round; while it works, a pane beside you shows what it's doing (mesh peek --follow) and closes when it's done.
    • A reviewer that didn't answer (its line says why: hung, stopped, held at a startup screen, out of quota) stays open: follow its line, and its later answer comes to your inbox. mesh retire <name> it once you have no follow-up. Any other exit code is mesh watch's (see "Questions and reviews" in ~/.config/agent-mesh/ORCHESTRATE.md, the only section you need).
  5. Check every finding before you report it: it's a claim, not an order. Trace it in the code or run the failing case, and judge the suggested fix. Keep each finding's blocking or advisory mark (a blocking one you can't reproduce is advisory at most). With several reviewers, merge the same issue found by more than one into one finding and say who found it; agreement makes a finding likelier, not true, so check it all the same. Then give the user each finding with your verdict (agree, agree with a different fix, or disagree and why), and the reviewers' names: mesh ask <name> --body "…" asks one again with everything it read. Fix nothing unless the user asks; a fix they ask for goes on the PR's own branch, not in a new PR.

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.