finish
Skill1 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Finish a change before it is committed. Interrogates the diff, removes slop, audits its tests, hunts bugs and security flaws in it, runs the gates, reviews it in a fresh context, applies the findings, and leaves the tree ready to commit with one report. Sized to the risk of the change. Target is the uncommitted diff, or the branch when a base ref is given.
22 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- MarvinJWendt/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- leinardi/adversarial-review-looptheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- hex/claude-sessionstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- CG-5228/ClaudeCodeImpactLab_hackathontheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- danielcherubini/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- stjarnstrom/spec-systemtheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use status, bootstrap and 9 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.
AnthropicSkillstatus
Case status summary by audience — client-facing (plain language), internal (for the professor), or court-ready (formal caption format per local rules). Same facts, different framing and depth. Use when a student needs to update the client, brief the professor, or prepare a court status report.
Also in 5 projects that use this
OpenAISkillbootstrap
Project bootstrapping orchestrator for repos that depend on Vercel-linked resources (databases, auth, and managed integrations). Use when setting up or repairing a repository so linking, environment provisioning, env pulls, and first-run db/dev commands happen in the correct safe order.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AnthropicSkilldebug
Structured debugging session — reproduce, isolate, diagnose, and fix. Trigger with an error message or stack trace, "this works in staging but not prod", "something broke after the deploy", or when behavior diverges from expected and the cause isn't obvious.
Also in 5 projects that use this
Hugging FaceSkillimplement
Make tests pass. Invoke after /write-tests produces failing tests.
Also in 6 projects that use this
dillonluiSkilldesign-review
Review a view or flow for UX and UI issues. Provides severity-ranked, actionable findings grounded in established design heuristics. Use when the user asks for design feedback, UX review, or UI critique.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillreview
Fixture review skill.
Also in 8 projects that use this
- +1 more from anthropics
Other versions22 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 22
- hacan359/tonkatsu_box★ 597same name
- alexeykrol/claude-code-starter★ 194same name
- hex/claude-sessions★ 54same name
- rlajous/claude-code-commands★ 30same name
- alexiolan/craft-skills★ 17same name
- danielcherubini/skills★ 14same name
- keefar/ticket-flow★ 4same name
- mmjclayton/agent-sop★ 4same name
- andreasbaumgartner/gilo★ 2same name
- clearsmog/claude-skills★ 2same name
12 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 repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- auditSkill
- clean-code-reviewSkill
- clean-code-setupSkill
- clean-codeSkill
- deslopSkill
- interrogateSkill
- test-auditSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 18 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 17
Write the change record, once, and hand it to every step and to the reviewer:
- Very specific: line 45
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../interrogate/SKILL.md and apply it to the target with the record.
- Very specific: line 49
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../deslop/SKILL.md and apply it to the target's files with --refactor-only and the record, the hunks the target …
- Very specific: line 53
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../test-audit/SKILL.md and apply it to the tests the target added or changed and to the seams it changed that have …
- Very specific: line 57
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../audit/SKILL.md and apply it to the target's hunks and the functions they call.
- Very specific: line 61
Run the level's check. Red caused by the target is fixed before the review.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 18 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
Finish
One command between "it works" and git commit. It runs the finishing skills in the order that wastes the least work (interrogate first, because a deleted function needs no cleaning), sized to the risk of the change, with the discovery done once and handed to every step.
Arguments: $ARGUMENTS. The first argument that is not a flag is the base ref. --commit commits when the verdict is ready. --fast, --standard, --deep force a level; otherwise the level comes from the change.
0. Pin the change and write the record
- Target: with uncommitted changes,
git diff HEADplus untracked files fromgit status --short; with a clean tree,git diff <base>...HEAD(default base: the merge-base withmainormaster), and edits below land in the working tree on top of the branch. Empty target: stop and say so. Write the change record, once, and hand it to every step and to the reviewer:
Purpose <one sentence, from the request, commit messages, branch name, or a spec file> Target <working tree | base..HEAD> · <files> · <hunks per file> Checks check: <command> · fast: <lint + typecheck command> · focused tests: <command> Standards <CODING_STANDARDS.md | CONTRIBUTING.md | CLAUDE.md sections, or none> Baseline tests <N/N> · diff-stats <+a / -r> Risk <markers present: auth, persistence, concurrency, external side effects, public contract, migrations, >10 files, or none> Level <fast | standard | deep>A step that receives the record skips its own discovery. A check result is reused until a file it covers changes; after an edit, only typecheck and the focused tests rerun; the full check runs once before the review and once at the end.
- Level.
fastwhen the target is one module, under about 40 changed lines, and carries no risk marker.deepwhen any risk marker is present.standardotherwise. A flag overrides.
| Step | fast | standard | deep |
| 1 Interrogate | yes | yes | yes |
2 Deslop the hunks (--refactor-only) | passes 1 to 7 on the hunks | all passes | all passes |
| 3 Test audit of the change's tests | none | probes on touched functions, six at most | mutation tool where installed, twelve probes at most |
| 4 Audit of the diff and its callees | none | yes | yes, entry points and callers two levels out |
| 5 Gate | fast command | check command | check command |
| 6 Review | inline, after re-reading the diff from the top | fresh context | fresh context, second round even without changes |
| 7 Apply and re-gate | slop findings | all axes, two rounds at most | all axes, two rounds at most |
1. Interrogate
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../interrogate/SKILL.md and apply it to the target with the record. Make the cuts, verify with the focused tests. Keep its counts.
2. Deslop
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../deslop/SKILL.md and apply it to the target's files with --refactor-only and the record, the hunks the target touches first. Behaviour-preserving throughout.
3. Test audit
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../test-audit/SKILL.md and apply it to the tests the target added or changed and to the seams it changed that have no test, with the probe cap for the level.
4. Audit
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../audit/SKILL.md and apply it to the target's hunks and the functions they call. A bug in the change is fixed with a test that failed first; a pre-existing bug the change did not introduce is reported with its reproduction, not fixed here.
5. Gate
Run the level's check. Red caused by the target is fixed before the review. Red caused by something outside the target stops the run with needs decision.
6. Review with fresh eyes
Use the Agent tool with the general-purpose agent and this prompt: "Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../clean-code-review/SKILL.md and apply it with the arguments <base-ref> <spec-path, if any>. Change record: <the record>. Return the review block only." The reviewer sees the diff, the nearby code, the standards, and the record, not this session's reasoning. At fast, or on a host without subagents, review inline after re-reading the diff from the top, hunk by hunk, before writing a finding.
7. Apply
- Slop: apply all. Design: apply those with a concrete fix that keeps behaviour and stays inside the target's files; the rest are decisions in the report. Correctness: reproduce each (a failing test, a command that shows the wrong outcome); fix what reproduces, drop what does not with a note; restore any weakened check and fix the code instead. Scope: revert changed lines the purpose does not explain; a missing spec requirement is a decision, not something to build here.
- Verdict
rethink: stop, apply nothing further, reportneeds decisionwith the reviewer's worst issue. - Re-gate. When findings were applied, review once more and apply once more. Two rounds at most; a finding that survives two rounds is reported, not chased.
8. Land
Without --commit: leave the working tree as it is; nothing is staged on the user's behalf. With --commit and verdict ready: stage the target's files and commit with a conventional message from the purpose (feat:, fix:, refactor:), the body naming what was decided and ruled out. Any other verdict commits nothing.
Report
## Finish Report
Purpose <one sentence> · level <fast | standard | deep> (<why>)
Scope <working tree | base..HEAD> · <N files>
Interrogate deleted <n> · simplified <n>
Deslop dead code <n> · comments <n> · abstractions <n> · defensive <n> · duplication <n> · naming <n> · filler <n> · hotspots <n> · design <n> · docs <n>
Tests deleted <n> · rewritten <n> · added <n> · probes killed <k>/<m> (or skipped at fast)
Audit fixed <n> (bugs <n> · weaknesses <n> · security <n>) · reported <n> (or skipped at fast)
Review round 1: <n> findings (slop <n> · design <n> · correctness <n> · scope <n>) · round 2: <n | skipped> · verdict <merge | fix then merge | rethink> · <fresh | inline>
Diff +<added> / -<removed> lines · net <±n> (was +<a> / -<r> before finishing)
Gates check <pass|fail|n/a> · typecheck <pass|fail|n/a> · lint <pass|fail|n/a> · tests <passed>/<total>
Complexity max <n> · over budget <n> · erosion <x%> (or n/a)
Unverified <what could not be run, and why, or "nothing">
Verdict <ready to commit | committed <sha> | needs decision: ...>
Commit <suggested one-line message>Numbers from diff-stats.sh and complexity.sh in the clean-code skill folder (${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../clean-code/scripts/) and from the commands that ran. Below the block: the findings left open, each with file, line, and the reason. Nothing else.
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.

