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
- neuroborus/agent-runnertheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- niieani/caaraword for word, first seen Jul 5, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- niieani/caara★ 4100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 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.
- david-workflowSkill
- effect-best-practicesSkill
- effect-review-v4Skill
- zero-tech-debtSkill
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
- Very specific: line 19
Run git diff --name-only main...HEAD to find all changed files on the current branch.
- Distinctive: line 59
After all agents complete, compile results into a single report:
- Distinctive: line 111
After compiling all findings, assign an overall score from 0 to 10:
- Distinctive: line 123
0: No compliance — entirely non-Effect code submitted as Effect code
≈ “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.
Files
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:
.tsfiles NOT ending in.test.ts, NOT config files (.config.ts,tsconfig, etc.), NOT UI component library directories - Test files:
.test.tsfiles - UI files:
.tsxfiles - 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 IDsotel-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 (noas any, prefersatisfiesoveras, 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, Layerreferences/branded-types.md— Branded type usage and known types listreferences/otel-patterns.md— Tracing, span annotations, structured loggingreferences/error-patterns.md— Schema.TaggedError, catchTag, error contextreferences/typescript-patterns.md— Noas any, prefersatisfiesoveras, no manual type annotationsreferences/test-patterns.md— @effect/vitest, it.layer, coverage assessmentreferences/effect-atom-patterns.md— Effect-Atom React patterns, queries, mutations, Result.builder
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.

