code-review
Skill2 starsChanged 29 days agoMITView on GitHub
Reviews the active task's commits with a fresh-context reviewer subagent and handles the feedback with technical rigor, through the vendored superpowers requesting-code-review and receiving-code-review procedures, with the task plan and commit range injected. Use after a task's commits exist and before summarize-task, before a merge or PR, or when the user says review this, code review, check my changes. Not for reviewing a plan (plan-eng-review) and not without commits for the task.
194 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- doggy8088/spec-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- strelov1/freehiretheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- storybookjs/storybooktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- supabase/supabasetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- The-Vibe-Company/quivrtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
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.
dzhngSkillclose-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
dzhngSkilldesign-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
PydanticSkilladd-new-model
Add support for a newly-released language or image generation model in pydantic-ai (e.g. openai:gpt-5.6, anthropic:claude-sonnet-5, openai:gpt-image-2). Use when a provider ships a new model id and you need to wire literals, profile flags, adapters, and tests to recognize it. Handles SDK-lag, gateway list conventions, capability probing, and direct image-model geometry.
Also in 9 projects that use this
transitive-bullshitSkillcompare-screenshots
Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.
Also in 5 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillazsdk-common-apiview-feedback-resolution
Analyze and resolve APIView review feedback on Azure SDK PRs. **UTILITY SKILL**. USE FOR: APIView comments, API review feedback, SDK API surface changes. DO NOT USE FOR: general code review, non-APIView feedback. INVOKES: azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_apiview_get_comments, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_customized_code_update, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_typespec_delegate_apiview_feedback, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_run_typespec_validation, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_package_generate_code.
Also in 6 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillazsdk-common-generate-sdk-locally
Generate and finalize Azure SDKs locally from TypeSpec, including build, checks, tests, changelog, metadata, and version updates by default. WHEN: "generate SDK locally", "build SDK", "run SDK tests", "run CI checks", "validate package", "run checks", "update changelog", "fix SDK build errors", "resolve SDK generation errors", "customize TypeSpec", "rename SDK client", "rename SDK model", "hide operation from SDK", "fix analyzer errors", "resolve customization drift", "create subclient", "update metadata", "update version". INVOKES: azsdk_verify_setup, azsdk_package_generate_code, azsdk_package_build_code, azsdk_package_run_check, azsdk_package_run_tests, azsdk_customized_code_update, azsdk_package_update_changelog_content, azsdk_package_update_metadata, azsdk_package_update_version.
Also in 6 projects that use this
- +4 more from dzhng
- +2 more from Azure
Other versions194 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 194
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- TheAlgorithms/Python★ 226ksame name
- microsoft/vscode★ 195ksame name
- github/spec-kit★ 149ksame name
- ggml-org/llama.cpp★ 134ksame name
- supabase/supabase★ 115ksame name
- storybookjs/storybook★ 91ksame name
- shareAI-lab/analysis_claude_code★ 80ksame name
- shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code★ 80ksame name
- vectorize-io/hindsight★ 60ksame name
184 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 repository32 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- check-consistencySkill
- adopt-brownfieldSkill
- atomic-designSkill
- deutschland-stack-apiSkill
- document-releaseSkill
- european-alternatives-apiSkill
- finish-branchSkill
- grillSkill
- handoff-sessionSkill
- init-projectSkill
- minimal-codeSkill
- office-hoursSkill
- oss-projectSkill
- plan-ceo-reviewSkill
- plan-eng-reviewSkill
- plan-milestoneSkill
- plan-taskSkill
- quick-taskSkill
- reassess-roadmapSkill
- reconcileSkill
- resume-sessionSkill
- retroSkill
- shipSkill
- slice-milestoneSkill
- software-craftsmanshipSkill
- spawn-milestone-teamSkill
- summarize-taskSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- using-ytstackSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 184 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 75
After the reviewer subagent returns, the vendored receiving-code-review procedure applies to its findings.
- Very specific: line 79
Do NOT run ytstack:summarize-task or ytstack:verification-before-completion automatically.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 184 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
ytstack:code-review
Thin wrapper around two vendored superpowers skills: requesting-code-review (dispatch a reviewer subagent with precise context) and receiving-code-review (evaluate the feedback instead of performing agreement). Injects the active task's plan and commit range, inlines both vendored procedures verbatim, and routes the findings into ytstack artifacts.
ytstack context (resolved at render time)
# ytstack resolver (M016): checkout = where this shell runs, via the shared lib.
_LIB="${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/lib/git-ctx.sh"
if [ -f "$_LIB" ]; then
. "$_LIB"; yt_git_ctx "$PWD"; yt_resolve_yt_dir >/dev/null
_PROJECT_DIR="$YT_TOPLEVEL"; _YT_DIR="$YT_DIR"; _YT_SCOPE="$YT_SCOPE"; _IS_GIT="$YT_IS_GIT"; _PROJECT_KEY="$YT_REPO_KEY"
else
# Host did not substitute CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR (e.g. Codex adapter): project scope only.
_IS_GIT=$([ "$(git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree 2>/dev/null)" = true ] && echo yes || echo no)
_PROJECT_DIR=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd -P)
_YT_DIR=""; _YT_SCOPE=none; _PROJECT_KEY=""
[ -d "$_PROJECT_DIR/.ytstack" ] && { _YT_DIR="$_PROJECT_DIR/.ytstack"; _YT_SCOPE=project; }
fi
cd "$_PROJECT_DIR" 2>/dev/null || true
_PROJECT_SLUG=$(basename "$_PROJECT_DIR")
_M=none; _S=none; _T=none
if [ -n "$_YT_DIR" ] && [ -f "$_YT_DIR/STATE.md" ]; then
_M=$(sed -n 's/^current_milestone: *//p' "$_YT_DIR/STATE.md" | head -1)
_S=$(sed -n 's/^active_slice: *//p' "$_YT_DIR/STATE.md" | head -1)
_T=$(sed -n 's/^active_task: *//p' "$_YT_DIR/STATE.md" | head -1)
fi
_TASK_PLAN="$_YT_DIR/$_M-$_S-$_T-PLAN.md"
# Commits of the active task (same discovery as summarize-task: task-ref pattern, branch fallback).
_COMMITS=""; _COMMITS_SOURCE=none; _BASE_SHA=""; _HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo none)
if [ "$_IS_GIT" = yes ] && [ "$_T" != none ] && command -v yt_task_commits >/dev/null 2>&1; then
_PAT=$(yt_commit_ref_pattern "$_YT_DIR" "$_M" "$_S" "$_T")
yt_task_commits "$_PROJECT_DIR" "$_PAT"
_COMMITS="$YT_COMMITS"; _COMMITS_SOURCE="$YT_COMMITS_SOURCE"
if [ "$_COMMITS_SOURCE" = task-ref ]; then
_OLDEST=$(git log --no-merges -E --grep "$_PAT" --pretty=format:%h 2>/dev/null | tail -1)
[ -n "$_OLDEST" ] && _BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse "$_OLDEST^" 2>/dev/null || echo "")
elif [ -n "$YT_COMMITS_BASE" ]; then
_BASE_SHA="$YT_COMMITS_BASE"
fi
fi
echo "HAS_YTSTACK: $([ -n "$_YT_DIR" ] && echo yes || echo no)"
echo "IS_GIT: $_IS_GIT"
echo "ACTIVE_TASK: $_M-$_S-$_T"
echo "TASK_PLAN: $_TASK_PLAN"
echo "TASK_PLAN_EXISTS: $([ -f "$_TASK_PLAN" ] && echo yes || echo no)"
echo "COMMITS_SOURCE: $_COMMITS_SOURCE"
echo "BASE_SHA: ${_BASE_SHA:-none}"
echo "HEAD_SHA: $_HEAD_SHA"
echo "COMMITS_BEGIN"
echo "${_COMMITS:-(none)}"
echo "COMMITS_END"ytstack invocation notes
You are invoked inside a ytstack project after the active task's commits exist. The vendored requesting-code-review template needs {DESCRIPTION}, {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}, {BASE_SHA}, {HEAD_SHA}: take the description from the task plan's Summary, the requirements from TASK_PLAN (What this does + Verification), and the SHAs from BASE_SHA / HEAD_SHA above (never guess HEAD~1).
HARD-GATE: if IS_GIT=no, abort. If ACTIVE_TASK has none in it or TASK_PLAN_EXISTS=no, abort with "no active task plan; run ytstack:plan-task or review a plain diff without ytstack". If COMMITS_SOURCE=none or BASE_SHA=none, abort with "no commits found for the task; commit with the M###-S##-T##: prefix (or set commit_ref_pattern in PREFERENCES) and re-run".
After the reviewer subagent returns, the vendored receiving-code-review procedure applies to its findings. ytstack additions:
- Critical and Important findings fixed now get their own task-ref commits; Minor findings and "push-backs with reasoning" go into the task summary's Follow-ups (
ytstack:summarize-taskreads them from the conversation). - A finding that reveals a repo-wide pattern goes to
KNOWLEDGE.md; a reversal of an earlier choice goes toDECISIONS.md, never silently. - Do NOT run
ytstack:summarize-taskorytstack:verification-before-completionautomatically; name them as the next step.
Vendored procedure 1: requesting (inlined verbatim)
cat "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../vendor/superpowers/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md"Vendored procedure 2: receiving (inlined verbatim)
cat "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../vendor/superpowers/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md"Namespace note (ytstack)
The text above is upstream superpowers content (v7.0.2) rendered inside ytstack. Read superpowers:<skill> as ytstack:<skill> and invoke the ytstack-namespaced skill via the Skill tool. Relative links such as code-reviewer.md (the reviewer prompt template) resolve under vendor/superpowers/skills/requesting-code-review/ in the ytstack plugin directory (${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../vendor/superpowers/skills/requesting-code-review/); read the template from there and fill it with the values from the ytstack context block. "Subagent-driven development" in the vendored text corresponds to ytstack:spawn-milestone-team's worktree subagents.
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.

