agentleFS
MakisuoMakisuo/skills/effect-review/SKILL.md

effect-review

Skill79 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub

This skill should be used when the user asks to "review code", "review my changes", "check effect patterns", "run effect review", "effect review", "review for effect best practices", or wants a comprehensive code review against Effect-TS conventions, branded types, observability, error handling, test coverage, and UI quality.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 1

    1. niieani/caara★ 4100% same

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. neuroborus/agent-runner★ 2same 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 repository4 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    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:

    Run git diff --name-only main...HEAD to find all changed files on the current branch.

    line 19
  2. Distinctive:

    After all agents complete, compile results into a single report:

    line 59
  3. Distinctive:

    After compiling all findings, assign an overall score from 0 to 10:

    line 111
  4. Distinctive:

    0: No compliance — entirely non-Effect code submitted as Effect code

    line 123

≈ “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

Effect-TS Code Review

Orchestrate a multi-agent review of code changes against Effect-TS best practices.

Workflow

Step 1: Discover Changed Files

Run git diff --name-only main...HEAD to find all changed files on the current branch. If that fails (e.g., on main), fall back to git diff --name-only HEAD~1 or git diff --name-only for unstaged changes.

List the changed files for the user.

Step 2: Categorize Files

Split files into categories:

  • Backend Effect files: .ts files NOT ending in .test.ts, NOT config files (.config.ts, tsconfig, etc.), NOT UI component library directories
  • Test files: .test.ts files
  • UI files: .tsx files
  • Skip: .md, .json, .yml, .css, config files, generated files

Step 3: Launch Sub-Agents in Parallel

Based on which categories have files, launch the appropriate agents using the Agent tool. Launch all applicable agents in a single message for maximum parallelism.

If backend Effect files exist, launch these 4 agents in parallel:

  • effect-primitives-reviewer — checks Effect primitives (Array, Match, Option, forEach, no try/catch, no async/await, Layer not Effect.provide)
  • branded-types-reviewer — checks branded type usage for all entity IDs
  • otel-reviewer — checks tracing setup (Effect.fn trace names, annotateCurrentSpan, structured logging)
  • error-reviewer — checks error definitions and handling (Schema.TaggedError, catchTag, rich context)
  • typescript-reviewer — checks TypeScript patterns (no as any, prefer satisfies over as, no manual type annotations on inferred types)

If test files exist, launch:

  • test-coverage-reviewer — checks @effect/vitest patterns and assesses coverage gaps

If UI files exist, launch:

  • ui-reviewer — checks component library usage, accessibility, layout, brand consistency

For each agent, provide the prompt:

Review the following files for [agent's specialty]. Read each file and produce a structured report with Critical/Warning/Info findings.

Files to review:

  • [list of file paths]

Also review the reference guide at references/[relevant-reference].md (relative to this skill) for the detailed checklist.

Step 4: Unified Report

After all agents complete, compile results into a single report:

# Effect Review Report

## Effect Primitives
[agent output]

## Branded Types
[agent output]

## OTEL / Observability
[agent output]

## Error Handling
[agent output]

## TypeScript Patterns
[agent output]

## Test Coverage
[agent output]

## UI Quality
[agent output]

---

## Summary

| Category | Critical | Warning | Info |
|----------|----------|---------|------|
| Primitives | X | Y | Z |
| Branded Types | X | Y | Z |
| OTEL | X | Y | Z |
| Errors | X | Y | Z |
| TypeScript | X | Y | Z |
| Tests | X | Y | Z |
| UI | X | Y | Z |
| **Total** | **X** | **Y** | **Z** |

**Verdict**: PASS / NEEDS WORK / FAIL

**Score: X/10**
  • PASS: 0 critical findings
  • NEEDS WORK: 1-3 critical findings
  • FAIL: 4+ critical findings

Scoring (0-10)

After compiling all findings, assign an overall score from 0 to 10:

  • 10: Perfect — no findings at all, exemplary Effect-TS code
  • 9: Excellent — only minor info-level suggestions
  • 8: Great — a few warnings, no criticals
  • 7: Good — several warnings but no criticals
  • 6: Acceptable — 1 critical or many warnings
  • 5: Needs work — 2-3 criticals
  • 4: Below standard — 4-5 criticals
  • 3: Poor — 6+ criticals or fundamental pattern violations
  • 2: Very poor — majority of code ignores Effect patterns
  • 1: Minimal compliance — almost no Effect patterns followed
  • 0: No compliance — entirely non-Effect code submitted as Effect code

Display the score prominently at the end of the report.

Reference Files

Detailed checklists with codebase-specific examples:

  • references/effect-primitives.md — Effect Array, Match, Option, forEach, Schema, Layer
  • references/branded-types.md — Branded type usage and known types list
  • references/otel-patterns.md — Tracing, span annotations, structured logging
  • references/error-patterns.md — Schema.TaggedError, catchTag, error context
  • references/typescript-patterns.md — No as any, prefer satisfies over as, no manual type annotations
  • references/test-patterns.md — @effect/vitest, it.layer, coverage assessment
  • references/effect-atom-patterns.md — Effect-Atom React patterns, queries, mutations, Result.builder

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.