agentleFS
Sign inStart free
SnoozleStudioSnoozleStudio/opencode-wp-settings/skills/review/SKILL.md

review

Skill4 starsChanged 3 days agoMITView on GitHub

Two-axis code review of a diff since a fixed point — Standards (repo conventions, WordPress best practices, Fowler smell baseline) and Spec (faithful implementation of the originating ask). Use for "review my changes", "is this ready to commit/PR". Not for security deep-dives (use wp-security-audit) or adversarial logic proof (use verify). Delegates to the reviewer agent.

192 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use close-spec, design-with-images and 10 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.
  • dzhngSkill

    close-spec

    When a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes) and [review](../review/SKILL.md) (run before closing).

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • dzhngSkill

    design-with-images

    Explore UI and visual design with image generation, then iterate the real implementation against the user-selected concept. Use when brainstorming visual directions, offering mockup variants, or implementing an approved generated design; do not stop at the mockups or the first code approximation.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • LambenthanSkill

    daily-arxiv

    每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文，过滤相关性，auto-ingest 高优先级论文，检测 SOTA 更新

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • LambenthanSkill

    exp-eval

    实验判决门：Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • +3 more from dzhng
  • +5 more from Lambenthan

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 156 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    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 php vendor/bin/phpcs --standard=phpcs.xml -d memory_limit=1024M and report its findings verbatim — don't paraphrase them away

    line 29
  2. Distinctive:

    Never review your own work alone — the two-axis split is the minimum

    line 37

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 156 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Code Review

Delegates to the reviewer agent. Two axes, deliberately separated so neither pollutes the other.

Procedure

  1. Determine the diff: git diff (unstaged), git diff HEAD (uncommitted), or git diff <base>..<head> for a branch

  2. Spawn two review passes (or one agent running both axes with separation):

    Standards axis — against the repo's AGENTS.md + phpcs.xml:

    • PHP: escaping matrix, wp_unslash before sanitize, validation before sanitize, $wpdb->prepare, nonces + capabilities, i18n text domains, array(), Yoda, tabs, prefixes, one class per file
    • JS: ES modules, cleanup/teardown present, reduced-motion gates, no var
    • A11y: labels, aria, contrast, keyboard, focus
    • Fowler smell baseline: large functions, duplicated branches, leaky abstractions, speculative generality

    Spec axis — against the originating ask/spec:

    • Does the diff do what was asked? Missing edge cases, incomplete error paths, scope creep
  3. Run php vendor/bin/phpcs --standard=phpcs.xml -d memory_limit=1024M and report its findings verbatim — don't paraphrase them away
  4. Verdict: APPROVE / APPROVE WITH NITS / REQUEST CHANGES, with numbered findings (file:line, severity, concrete fix)

Rules

  • Blocker findings mean the change does not ship; fix first, re-review the diff
  • Never review your own work alone — the two-axis split is the minimum
  • Small fixes get one pass; the axe is blunt for a 3-line diff — calibrate depth to change size (a bug-fix PR should review in under 2 minutes)

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.

Check your setup, free