write-review
Skill4 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Review a SpecForge spec as a reviewer agent, and file the review as a child spec of the spec being reviewed. Use when asked to "review spec <id>", "critique this spec", "give a second opinion on <spec>", or when a workflow hands you a spec to review. Creates the review with `specforge review`, writes a verdict and severity-ranked findings, credits you as a reviewer of the reviewed spec, and passes the verify gate. Not for answering comments on a spec you own: that is review-spec.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- adhamhaithameid/write-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- adhamhaithameid/write-skills★ 1same 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 repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- convert-specSkill
- create-specSkill
- export-mdSkill
- exportSkill
- generate-templateSkill
- list-specsSkill
- migrate-specSkill
- review-specSkill
- start-specforgeSkill
- tune-templatesSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 51
Check its claims against whatever it rests on: the code, the sibling specs it links, the request it answers.
≈ “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
write-review
A review is a spec of its own, filed under the spec it reviews. It gets its own URL, status and comment threads, and the reviewed spec's Child specs drawer lists every review it has had. The reviewed spec shows you as a reviewer on the home page and in its header.
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} below denotes the installed plugin directory. Claude and
Pi export it; Codex provides the exact value in SpecForge SessionStart context.
Substitute that value in every path and shell command.
The cadence
- One review is one child spec. Reviewing again after the author changed the spec is a new review, never an edit of the old one, so the history stays.
- Never edit the reviewed spec, and do not leave comments on it. The review is the channel. The author decides what changes.
- Say so if you are its author. The home page and header show who wrote it. A self-review is allowed when asked, and its scope section says it is one.
1. Read the spec you are reviewing
Resolve what you were given to a spec id first. A store id is 10 hex characters; anything else, look up with:
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/specforge-cli.mjs" listallThen read it by map and section rather than as one file:
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/spec-nav-cli.mjs" map --spec ~/.specforge/specs/<id>/spec.html
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/spec-nav-cli.mjs" section <sectionId> --spec ~/.specforge/specs/<id>/spec.htmlCheck its claims against whatever it rests on: the code, the sibling specs it links, the request it answers. A review that only read the spec says so.
2. Create the review
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/specforge-cli.mjs" review <id> --model <your model id>--model is your own model id, exactly as your harness names it (for example
claude-opus-5, gpt-6-astra, glm-5.3-flash). The harness is detected. The
command creates the child spec, credits you as its author, and credits you as a
reviewer of <id>.
It prints what create prints: { id, htmlPath, url, skeleton, prompts,
language, author, reviewOf, reviewers }. Author into htmlPath, section by
section, as the create-spec skill describes. language is the writing
contract in force; follow it. Read prompts before writing each section.
3. Write the four sections
Verdict, what you reviewed, findings, questions for the author. The prompts
carry the rules. Keep the whole review short: five blocking and major findings
are worth more than twenty minor ones. Link each finding to the section it is
about, as /spec/<reviewed id>#<section id>.
4. Pass the gate
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/specforge-cli.mjs" verify <reviewId> --jsonThe same loop as create-spec step 4: fix what fails, judge the ask rules,
three rounds at most.
5. Hand off
Print the review's URL and its verdict in one line. The review is attached to
your session, so comments on it reach you; arm delivery the way create-spec
step 5 describes.
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.