caveman-review
Skill3 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
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.
60 other projects use a version of this, 22 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sudeepgupta90/my-ai-marketplaceedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mjlueck-hash/cavemanword for word, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- dhruvsaxena1998/skillsedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- MMACABRE/SKILLSedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- gopalparashar421/agent-skillsedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- tardigrde/obsidian-agentic-chatword for word, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use megacave, ultracave and 2 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.
JuliusBrusseeSkillmegacave
Caveman in Classical Chinese: 文言文 register, far fewer characters, technical terms verbatim. Invoke only with /megacave or /caveman wenyan. Stays on until "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
Also in 5 projects that use this
JuliusBrusseeSkillultracave
Caveman at maximum compression: fragments, one word when one word is enough, each fact once. Invoke only with /ultracave or /caveman ultra. Stays on until "stop caveman" or "normal mode".
Also in 5 projects that use this
- +2 more from JuliusBrussee
Other versions60 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 37
- jeffvli/feishin★ 10k100% same
- HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard★ 565100% same
- dbt-labs/docs.getdbt.com★ 220100% same
- kubestellar/console★ 151100% same
- rawsun007/claude-notch★ 66100% same
- Namma-Flutter/namma_wallet★ 59100% same
- nitingupta220/riperflow★ 19100% same
- chinkan/RustFox★ 11100% same
- CashewTeam/Con11-AI-Skills★ 8100% same
- tardigrde/obsidian-agentic-chat★ 8100% same
27 more not listed
Edited · 22
- JuliusBrussee/caveman★ 118k93% same
- goern/forgejo-mcp★ 15293% same
- PanPanFR/oh-my-openkilo★ 993% same
- weselben/RooForge★ 496% same
- chadixearth/graphyloop★ 3100% same
- gopalparashar421/agent-skills★ 297% same
- Hayatelin/caveman-zh-CN★ 249% same
- hongphuc5497/skills★ 293% same
- miguelmartens/opencode-caveman★ 293% same
- nomdedev/agent-manager-template★ 293% same
12 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 1
- Gopyr/gopyr-skills-hub★ 0same 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 repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- caveman-learn/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- cavecrewSkill
- caveman-commitSkill
- caveman-compressSkill
- caveman-discoverSkill
- caveman-evidence-reviewSkill
- caveman-exploreSkill
- caveman-helpSkill
- caveman-learnSkill
- caveman-manageSkill
- caveman-optimizeSkill
- caveman-setupSkill
- cavemanSkill
- caveman-statsSkill
- fullstack-devSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 1 is common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
1
Common
Most of the 20 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
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
- Common: line 10
Write code review comments terse and actionable.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 20 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
Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.
Rules
Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. — or <file>:L<line>: ... when reviewing multi-file diffs.
Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):
🔴 bug:— broken behavior, will cause incident🟡 risk:— works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)🔵 nit:— style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore❓ q:— genuine question, not a suggestion
Drop:
- "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."
- "This is just a suggestion but..." — use
nit:instead - "Great work!", "Looks good overall but..." — say it once at the top, not per comment
- Restating what the line does — the reviewer can read the diff
- Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe", "I think") — if unsure use
q:
Keep:
- Exact line numbers
- Exact symbol/function/variable names in backticks
- Concrete fix, not "consider refactoring this"
- The why if the fix isn't obvious from the problem statement
Examples
❌ "I noticed that on line 42 you're not checking if the user object is null before accessing the email property. This could potentially cause a crash if the user is not found in the database. You might want to add a null check here."
✅ L42: 🔴 bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.
❌ "It looks like this function is doing a lot of things and might benefit from being broken up into smaller functions for readability."
✅ L88-140: 🔵 nit: 50-line fn does 4 things. Extract validate/normalize/persist.
❌ "Have you considered what happens if the API returns a 429? I think we should probably handle that case."
✅ L23: 🟡 risk: no retry on 429. Wrap in withBackoff(3).
Auto-Clarity
Drop terse mode for: security findings (CVE-class bugs need full explanation + reference), architectural disagreements (need rationale, not just a one-liner), and onboarding contexts where the author is new and needs the "why". In those cases write a normal paragraph, then resume terse for the rest.
Boundaries
Reviews only — does not write the code fix, does not approve/request-changes, does not run linters. Output the comment(s) ready to paste into the PR. "stop caveman-review" or "normal mode": revert to verbose review style.
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.

