agentleFS
Sign inStart free
YogirajAYogirajA/Claude-Skills/ponytail-review/SKILL.md

ponytail-review

Skill1 starsChanged 58 days agoMITView on GitHub

Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we delete", "is this over-engineered", "simplify review", or invokes /ponytail-review. Complements correctness-focused review, this one only hunts complexity.

72 other projects use a version of this, 49 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use caveman-commit, caveman-review and 3 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.
  • huangzidaSkill

    caveman-commit

    Ultra-compressed commit message generator. Cuts noise from commit messages while preserving intent and reasoning. Conventional Commits format. Subject ≤50 chars, body only when "why" isn't obvious. Use when user says "write a commit", "commit message", "generate commit", "/commit", or invokes /caveman-commit. Auto-triggers when staging changes.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • huangzidaSkill

    caveman-review

    Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • JuliusBrusseeSkill

    caveman-stats

    Show recorded output and cache-read token usage and mode attribution for the current Claude Code session, or locate the host's native usage report. Trigger: /caveman-stats.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • jaydubya818Skill

    thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review

    Use when the user requests an intentionally strict maintainability review.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    e2e

    Run E2E tests for Sentry JavaScript SDK test applications

    Also in 4 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 1

    Common

    Most of the 69 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    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:

    If there is nothing to cut, say Lean already.

    line 49
  2. Common:

    Does not apply the fixes, only lists them.

    line 58

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 69 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

Review diffs for unnecessary complexity. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. The diff's best outcome is getting shorter.

Format

L<line>: <tag> <what>. <replacement>., or <file>:L<line>: ... for multi-file diffs.

Tags:

  • delete: dead code, unused flexibility, speculative feature. Replacement: nothing.
  • stdlib: hand-rolled thing the standard library ships. Name the function.
  • native: dependency or code doing what the platform already does. Name the feature.
  • yagni: abstraction with one implementation, config nobody sets, layer with one caller.
  • shrink: same logic, fewer lines. Show the shorter form.

Examples

❌ "This EmailValidator class might be more complex than necessary, have you considered whether all these validation rules are needed at this stage?"

✅ L12-38: stdlib: 27-line validator class. "@" in email, 1 line, real validation is the confirmation mail.

✅ L4: native: moment.js imported for one format call. Intl.DateTimeFormat, 0 deps.

✅ repo.py:L88: yagni: AbstractRepository with one implementation. Inline it until a second one exists.

✅ L52-71: delete: retry wrapper around an idempotent local call. Nothing replaces it.

✅ L30-44: shrink: manual loop builds dict. dict(zip(keys, values)), 1 line.

Scoring

End with the only metric that matters: net: -<N> lines possible.

If there is nothing to cut, say Lean already. Ship. and stop.

Boundaries

Scope: over-engineering and complexity only. Correctness bugs, security holes, and performance are explicitly out of scope. Route them to a normal review pass, not this one. Does not delegate to cavecrew-reviewer; bugs and risks go to a normal review pass. A single smoke test or assert-based self-check is the ponytail minimum, not bloat, never flag it for deletion. Does not apply the fixes, only lists them.

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