review
Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Run a standard Claude Code review of local git changes in this repository. Args: --wait, --background, --base <ref>, --scope <auto|working-tree|branch>, --model <model>, --effort <auto|low|medium|high|xhigh|max>. Defaults to opus with CLI-selected effort. Use as the default path for ordinary code-review requests when the user did not explicitly ask for stronger adversarial scrutiny or for Claude to own the implementation work.
192 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- microsoft/veronatheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- microsoft/FluidFrameworktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- charliee1w/consolidation-memorytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- jisuzzzz/haechitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- apokamo/kajitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- dirien/yet-another-agent-harnesstheir 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
dzhngSkilldesign-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
LambenthanSkilldaily-arxiv
每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文,过滤相关性,auto-ingest 高优先级论文,检测 SOTA 更新
Also in 5 projects that use this
LambenthanSkillexp-eval
实验判决门:Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges
Also in 5 projects that use this
- +3 more from dzhng
- +5 more from Lambenthan
Other versions192 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 192
- garrytan/gstack★ 141ksame name
- ansible/ansible★ 71ksame name
- docling-project/docling★ 70ksame name
- traefik/traefik★ 65ksame name
- ClickHouse/ClickHouse★ 51ksame name
- temporalio/temporal★ 24ksame name
- tisfeng/Easydict★ 15ksame name
- juicedata/juicefs★ 15ksame name
- elie222/inbox-zero★ 13ksame name
- gitkraken/vscode-gitlens★ 10ksame name
182 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.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
47 rules. 0 are common, 20 are distinctive, and 27 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 157 edited versions we read keep these.
20
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
27
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this skill when the user wants Claude Code to review the current working tree or a branch diff in this repository.
- Very specific: line 10
Use $cc:review as the default when the user asks for code review, asks you to have Claude review something, or wants a second review pass …
- Very specific: line 11
If the user asks for stronger challenge on design, tradeoffs, rollout risk, migration risk, configuration behavior, or provides custom …
- Very specific: line 12
If the user wants Claude Code to investigate, validate by changing code, or actually fix/implement something, route to $cc:rescue instead.
- Very specific: line 13
If the overall request is "you review it too, also ask Claude to review in the background, then you aggregate and fix it", keep the …
- Distinctive: line 26
Before launching the review, stay in read-only inspection mode: inspect git status and diff stats only, then ask at most one user question …
- Distinctive: line 28
Do not accept staged-only or unstaged-only review modes.
- Very specific: line 29
Do not add extra review instructions or focus text.
- Very specific: line 32
If the raw arguments include --wait, do not ask.
- Very specific: line 33
If the raw arguments include --background, do not ask.
- Distinctive: line 38
Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work even when git diff --shortstat is empty.
- Distinctive: line 39
Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant working-tree status is empty or the explicit branch diff is empty.
- Distinctive: line 42
When in doubt, run the review instead of declaring that there is nothing to review.
- Very specific: line 49
Treat --wait and --background as Codex-side execution controls only.
- Very specific: line 51
If the user needs custom review instructions or more adversarial framing, they should use $cc:adversarial-review.
- Very specific: line 59
Do not fall back to raw claude, claude-code, claude review, bash -lc ...claude..., or any other direct Claude CLI syntax when the companion …
- Distinctive: line 60
If the resolved companion command fails, surface that failure.
- Distinctive: line 62
Do not fix anything mentioned in the review output.
- Very specific: line 66
Do not satisfy background review by using a generic claude_review_runner-style helper role, raw Claude CLI, or any other review executor …
- Very specific: line 67
Never satisfy background review by running the companion command itself with shell backgrounding such as &, nohup, detached spawn, or any …
- Very specific: line 69
Before spawning the built-in child, capture the review job id plus routing context in one call: node …
- Very specific: line 71
If that helper returns a non-empty jobId, pass it into the companion command as an internal --job-id <reserved-job-id> routing flag.
- Very specific: line 72
If that helper returns a non-empty ownerSessionId, include --owner-session-id <owner-session-id> in the companion command.
- Very specific: line 73
If it returns an empty ownerSessionId, omit --owner-session-id entirely.
- Very specific: line 74
If that helper returns a non-empty parentThreadId, pass it into the child prompt as the parent thread id for one-shot completion …
- Very specific: line 75
If it returns an empty parentThreadId, omit the notification path instead of emitting a blank thread-id placeholder.
- Distinctive: line 81
Prefer a self-contained child message over inheriting parent history.
- Very specific: line 82
Only consider fork_context: true as a last resort for a short follow-up where essential context truly cannot be summarized.
- Very specific: line 83
Before spawning the built-in child, emit one short commentary update that records the attempted subagent model selection.
- Very specific: line 84
If spawn_agent rejects gpt-5.4-mini with an explicit model-unavailable error such as Unknown model, model unavailable, or equivalent "not …
- Very specific: line 85
If that fallback happens, emit one short commentary update that clearly says gpt-5.4-mini was unavailable and the parent is retrying with …
- Distinctive: line 86
Do not use that fallback for arbitrary failures.
- Distinctive: line 88
run exactly one shell command
- Distinctive: line 91
run that command as one blocking foreground shell-tool call, not as a background terminal/session
- Distinctive: line 92
do not request a shell session id, poll a shell session later, or return before the companion command exits
- Very specific: line 93
if the available shell tool is exec_command, call it once in non-interactive mode and wait for command exit in that same call
- Very specific: line 96
never leave an empty routing placeholder such as --owner-session-id --job-id
- Distinctive: line 99
not inspect the repo or perform the review itself
- Very specific: line 100
if a parent thread id is available, allow one extra send_input call after a successful shell result and before finishing
- Distinctive: line 104
if the parent provided a non-empty parent thread id, do not silently drop the completion notification path from the child prompt
- Very specific: line 105
if a reserved review job id is available, use this exact notification message: Background Claude Code review finished.
- Distinctive: line 110
use these steering messages instead of embedding the raw review result in the notification
- Distinctive: line 111
do not embed the raw Claude result inside the notification message
- Distinctive: line 112
do not include any other prose in that notification message
- Distinctive: line 113
use that same steering message as the child's own final assistant message instead of echoing the raw review result
- Distinctive: line 114
Do not wait for completion in this turn.
- Very specific: line 115
After launching, tell the user: Claude Code review started in the background.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 157 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
Claude Code Review
Use this skill when the user wants Claude Code to review the current working tree or a branch diff in this repository.
Use $cc:review as the default when the user asks for code review, asks you to have Claude review something, or wants a second review pass without explicitly asking for stronger adversarial scrutiny.
If the user asks for stronger challenge on design, tradeoffs, rollout risk, migration risk, configuration behavior, or provides custom review focus text, route to $cc:adversarial-review instead.
If the user wants Claude Code to investigate, validate by changing code, or actually fix/implement something, route to $cc:rescue instead.
If the overall request is "you review it too, also ask Claude to review in the background, then you aggregate and fix it", keep the delegated Claude part on $cc:review unless the user explicitly asks for a harsher or more adversarial review.
$cc:review does not accept custom focus text. If the user wants to steer Claude toward a particular angle, question, subsystem, or risk area, that is a signal to use $cc:adversarial-review instead.
Resolve <plugin-root> as two directories above this SKILL.md file. Always run the companion from that active plugin root:
node "<plugin-root>/scripts/claude-companion.mjs" review ...
Supported arguments: --wait, --background, --base <ref>, --scope auto|working-tree|branch, --model <model>, --effort <auto|low|medium|high|xhigh|max> (defaults: model=opus, effort=auto delegated to Claude CLI)
Raw slash-command arguments:
$ARGUMENTS
Rules:
- This skill is review-only. Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes.
- Before launching the review, stay in read-only inspection mode: inspect git status and diff stats only, then ask at most one user question about whether to wait or run in background.
- Preserve the user's review scope flags exactly.
- Do not accept staged-only or unstaged-only review modes.
- Do not add extra review instructions or focus text. Route those requests to
$cc:adversarial-review.
Execution mode rules:
- If the raw arguments include
--wait, do not ask. Run the review in the foreground. - If the raw arguments include
--background, do not ask. Run the review in background through the built-in review subagent path. - Otherwise, estimate the review size before asking:
- For working-tree review, start with
git status --short --untracked-files=all. - For working-tree review, also inspect both
git diff --shortstat --cachedandgit diff --shortstat. - For base-branch review, use
git diff --shortstat <base>...HEAD. - Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work even when
git diff --shortstatis empty. - Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant working-tree status is empty or the explicit branch diff is empty.
- Recommend waiting only when the review is clearly tiny, roughly 1-2 files total and no sign of a broader directory-sized change.
- In every other case, including unclear size, recommend background.
- When in doubt, run the review instead of declaring that there is nothing to review.
- For working-tree review, start with
- Then use
AskUserQuestionexactly once with two options, putting the recommended option first and suffixing its label with(Recommended):Wait for resultsRun in background
Argument handling:
- Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
- Treat
--waitand--backgroundas Codex-side execution controls only. Strip them before calling the companion command. $cc:reviewis native-review only. It does not support staged-only review, unstaged-only review, or extra focus text.- If the user needs custom review instructions or more adversarial framing, they should use
$cc:adversarial-review. - The companion review process itself always runs in the foreground. Background mode only changes how Codex launches that command.
- For the detailed execution contract, treat the internal runtime reference at
../../internal-skills/review-runtime/runtime.mdas supporting guidance only. It is an internal reference document, not a public skill to invoke.
Foreground flow:
- Run:
node "<plugin-root>/scripts/claude-companion.mjs" review --view-state on-success <arguments with --wait/--background removed> - Foreground review belongs to the main Codex thread. Do not spawn a review subagent, do not invoke a generic review-runner role, and do not proxy this foreground path through any background worker abstraction.
- Do not fall back to raw
claude,claude-code,claude review,bash -lc ...claude..., or any other direct Claude CLI syntax when the companion path is available. The foreground syntax contract here is the resolved companion command above, not a hand-rolled Claude invocation. - If the resolved companion command fails, surface that failure. Do not silently retry foreground review through a different CLI shape, a generic review runner, or a custom shell wrapper.
- Present the companion stdout faithfully.
- Do not fix anything mentioned in the review output.
Background flow:
- For background review, use Codex's built-in
defaultsubagent instead of a detached background shell command. - Do not satisfy background review by using a generic
claude_review_runner-style helper role, raw Claude CLI, or any other review executor that bypasses the resolved companion command. - Never satisfy background review by running the companion command itself with shell backgrounding such as
&,nohup, detachedspawn, or any equivalent direct background process launch. - Background here means "spawn the forwarding child via
spawn_agentand do not wait in the parent turn." The companion review command inside that child still runs once, in the foreground, inside the child thread. - Before spawning the built-in child, capture the review job id plus routing context in one call:
node "<plugin-root>/scripts/claude-companion.mjs" background-routing-context --kind review --json - If that helper returns a non-empty
jobId, pass it into the companion command as an internal--job-id <reserved-job-id>routing flag. - If that helper returns a non-empty
ownerSessionId, include--owner-session-id <owner-session-id>in the companion command. - If it returns an empty
ownerSessionId, omit--owner-session-identirely. Never leave an empty placeholder such as--owner-session-id --job-id. - If that helper returns a non-empty
parentThreadId, pass it into the child prompt as the parent thread id for one-shot completion notification. - If it returns an empty
parentThreadId, omit the notification path instead of emitting a blank thread-id placeholder. - Spawn exactly one transient forwarding child through
spawn_agentwith:agent_type: "default"fork_context: falsemodel: "gpt-5.4-mini"reasoning_effort: "medium"
- Prefer a self-contained child message over inheriting parent history. The built-in review child should not rely on full parent thread replay for normal operation.
- Only consider
fork_context: trueas a last resort for a short follow-up where essential context truly cannot be summarized. Avoid it for large or long-lived threads because it can exhaust the child context window. - Before spawning the built-in child, emit one short commentary update that records the attempted subagent model selection. Default text should clearly say the parent is starting the built-in review child with
gpt-5.4-miniatmediumeffort. - If
spawn_agentrejectsgpt-5.4-miniwith an explicit model-unavailable error such asUnknown model,model unavailable, or equivalent "not in list / unavailable" wording, retry once withmodel: "gpt-5.4"and the samereasoning_effort: "medium". - If that fallback happens, emit one short commentary update that clearly says
gpt-5.4-miniwas unavailable and the parent is retrying withgpt-5.4. - Do not use that fallback for arbitrary failures.
- The built-in child must be a pure forwarder. It should:
- run exactly one shell command
- execute:
node "<plugin-root>/scripts/claude-companion.mjs" review --view-state defer <arguments with --wait/--background removed> - run that command as one blocking foreground shell-tool call, not as a background terminal/session
- do not request a shell session id, poll a shell session later, or return before the companion command exits
- if the available shell tool is
exec_command, call it once in non-interactive mode and wait for command exit in that same call - include
--owner-session-id <owner-session-id>only when the parent resolved a non-empty owner session id - include
--job-id <reserved-job-id>when the parent reserved one - never leave an empty routing placeholder such as
--owner-session-id --job-id - return only that command's stdout exactly, with no added commentary
- ignore stderr progress chatter such as
[cc] ...lines and preserve only the final stdout-equivalent result text - not inspect the repo or perform the review itself
- if a parent thread id is available, allow one extra
send_inputcall after a successful shell result and before finishing - the child prompt must mention the tool name
send_inputliterally; do not replace it with a vague instruction like "send a message to the parent" - that
send_inputcall must target the provided parent thread id, must happen at most once, and must not run on failure paths - that
send_inputcall should use the exact tool shapesend_input({ target: <parent-thread-id>, message: <steering-message> })with no extra prose payload - if the parent provided a non-empty parent thread id, do not silently drop the completion notification path from the child prompt
- if a reserved review job id is available, use this exact notification message:
Background Claude Code review finished. Open it with $cc:result <reserved-job-id>. - otherwise fall back to:
Background Claude Code review finished. Inspect it with $cc:status first, then use $cc:result for the finished job you want to open. - that
send_inputmessage should use one of those exact steering messages instead of inlining the raw review result - use these steering messages instead of embedding the raw review result in the notification
- do not embed the raw Claude result inside the notification message
- do not include any other prose in that notification message
- use that same steering message as the child's own final assistant message instead of echoing the raw review result
- Do not wait for completion in this turn.
- After launching, tell the user:
Claude Code review started in the background. Check the subagent session or $cc:status for progress, and once it's done, we will let you know to see the results. - Do not fix anything mentioned in the review output.
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.

