review-core-boundaries
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when reviewing shared core/infrastructure module changes for dependency direction, feature-boundary leakage, abstraction stability, composition, and blast-radius risks. Dispatched by review-orchestrator for --core-boundaries, --project-conventions, --all, or src/core/** changes.
In this repository76 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- autodoc-analystSkill
- autodoc-architectSkill
- autodoc-assemblerSkill
- autodoc-orchestratorSkill
- autodoc-scannerSkill
- autodoc-writerSkill
- brainstormSkill
- brd-creatorSkill
- caveman-modeSkill
- changelogSkill
- claude-md-managementSkill
- code-ai-reviewSkill
- code-boss-reviewSkill
- code-mobx-store-reviewSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- code-style-reviewSkill
- code-verifierSkill
- commitSkill
- constraint-driven-developmentSkill
- context-collectorSkill
- db-migrateSkill
- dependency-updateSkill
- deploySkill
- doubt-driven-developmentSkill
- feature-analyzerSkill
- feature-devSkill
- fsd-creatorSkill
- gproject-consistency-checkerSkill
- gproject-discoverySkill
- gproject-orchestratorSkill
- gproject-patterns-researcherSkill
- gproject-plannerSkill
- gproject-problem-definerSkill
- gproject-spec-writerSkill
- gproject-stack-advisorSkill
- hookifySkill
- iagoSkill
- interviewerSkill
- interviewSkill
- issue-analyzerSkill
- job-documenterSkill
- job-orchestratorSkill
- perf-checkSkill
- plan-gatekeeperSkill
- prd-creatorSkill
- pr-issue-documenterSkill
- pr-review-commentsSkill
- prSkill
- pushSkill
- review-architectureSkill
- review-backendSkill
- review-clean-codeSkill
- review-flow-graphSkill
- review-frontend-conventionsSkill
- review-frontendSkill
- review-greptileSkill
- review-highloadSkill
- review-logicSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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
- Distinctive: line 27
If a more specific module reviewer also applies, run both.
- Distinctive: line 38
Prefer composition through interfaces, base classes, adapters, or callbacks over hard-coded feature knowledge.
- Very specific: line 50
When dispatched by review-orchestrator, follow the provided reviewer-input.schema.json payload.
≈ “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
Review — Core Boundaries
Reviewer for shared infrastructure modules. A core module should provide stable foundations used by feature modules; it should not accumulate feature-specific behaviour.
Scope
Applicable to folders such as src/core/**, core/**, shared/**, foundation/**,
or whatever the repository documents as its shared infrastructure layer.
If a more specific module reviewer also applies, run both.
Checklist
- Shared/core modules contain reusable utilities, base components, base stores, primitives, and infrastructure.
- Feature-specific code does not move into core just to avoid imports.
- Core does not import feature/domain modules.
- Dependencies stay minimal and point inward: feature modules depend on core, not the reverse.
- Prefer composition through interfaces, base classes, adapters, or callbacks over hard-coded feature knowledge.
- Public core APIs remain stable and domain-neutral.
- New exports are added only when there is a real shared consumer need.
- Changes are conservative because core has broad blast radius.
- Generic helpers remain generic; names, types, and state do not leak a single feature's language.
- Resource-owning utilities document and test cleanup semantics.
Orchestrated Review Contract
When dispatched by review-orchestrator, follow the provided reviewer-input.schema.json payload. Return a REVIEW_RESULT object compatible with skills/review-orchestrator/reviewer-finding.schema.json, then a concise markdown summary. Keep findings evidence-based, include concrete suggested_fix for every blocker/major, and return NEEDS_CONTEXT instead of guessing when required context is missing.
Finding Format
### [F-NNN] Title
- **Severity**: blocker | major | minor | info
- **File**: path/to/core/file.ts:line
- **Problem**: core boundary or stability rule violated
- **Why it matters**: blast radius across modules
- **Fix**: move to domain module, invert dependency, or extract a truly shared abstractionSeverity guidance: importing feature code into core or adding feature-specific public API is
usually major; broad shared API breakage can be blocker.
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.

