code-reviewing
Skill0 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Deep coach-style code review of code the student wrote. Triggers on /review or REVIEW prefix. Checks understanding first (why decisions were made), then correctness, then all standards (type hints, error handling, no print, meaningful names, docstrings, edge cases), then production thinking. Never rewrites code -- points to problems, the student fixes them.
6 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- SWEStash/swe-workflow-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- alexandru/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-devtheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- AgentShekel/agentic-workflowtheir own version, first seen Oct 14, 2026
- RileyCornelius/Code-Skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- stepanenkoviktor0110-boop/ai-dev-methodologytheir own version, first seen May 31, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use code-writing, infrastructure-setup 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.
stepanenkoviktor0110-boopSkillcode-writing
Universal quality coding process: plan, TDD, reviews. Use whenever code needs to be written — ad-hoc or as part of a task.
Also in 3 projects that use this
stepanenkoviktor0110-boopSkillinfrastructure-setup
Sets up dev infrastructure for new projects: framework init, folder structure, Docker, pre-commit hooks (gitleaks), testing infrastructure, .gitignore.
Also in 3 projects that use this
nilecuiSkilldocumentation-writing
Writing clear, discoverable software documentation following the Eight Rules and Diataxis framework. Use when creating README files, API docs, tutorials, how-to guides, or any project documentation. Automatically enforces docs/ location, linking requirements, and runnable examples.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +1 more from stepanenkoviktor0110-boop
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 6
- pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev★ 299same name
- alexandru/skills★ 51same name
- AgentShekel/agentic-workflow★ 4same name
- stepanenkoviktor0110-boop/ai-dev-methodology★ 2same name
- SWEStash/swe-workflow-skills★ 1same name
- RileyCornelius/Code-Skills★ 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 repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adr-captureSkill
- adversarial-reviewSkill
- architect-firstSkill
- blog-draftingSkill
- brainstorming-knowledge-builderSkill
- session-startSkill
- debug-systemsSkill
- evolution-logSkill
- faang-loop-simulationSkill
- learn-in-publicSkill
- mock-assessingSkill
- os-lensSkill
- partner-systemSkill
- progress-updatingSkill
- review-systemsSkill
- spaced-reviewingSkill
- system-checkingSkill
- systems-traceSkill
- trend-scoutingSkill
- weekly-reflectingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
9
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Not just correctness. Understanding, production-readiness, and growth.
- Distinctive: line 13
After the student says they're done with an exercise
- Distinctive: line 23
If the student can't explain their own code → stop.
- Distinctive: line 27
Do tests cover happy path, edge case, and error case?
- Distinctive: line 28
Do all tests pass?
- Distinctive: line 54
If a concept or pattern emerged worth preserving → suggest brainstorm into wiki
- Distinctive: line 58
Never rewrite code. Point to the problem, the student fixes it.
- Distinctive: line 59
Ask WHY before saying WHAT's wrong.
- Distinctive: line 60
If the same mistake appears twice across sessions, escalate: "This is a pattern.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 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
Code Review -- Coach Mode
Not just correctness. Understanding, production-readiness, and growth.
Trigger
/revieworREVIEW:prefix- After the student says they're done with an exercise
Execution
- Read the file the student wants reviewed.
- Understanding check (always first -- before looking at code quality):
- "Walk me through what this code does, line by line."
- "Why did you choose [specific pattern]?"
- "What happens if [edge case]?"
- If the student can't explain their own code → stop. Understanding first, review second.
- TDD compliance:
- Does
test_*.pyexist? Were tests written FIRST? - Do tests cover happy path, edge case, and error case?
- Do all tests pass?
- Does
- Correctness:
- Does it run? Expected output?
- Edge cases handled?
- Error paths covered?
- Standards compliance (ALL enforced, always):
- Type hints on every function signature
- Proper error handling (never bare
except, catch specific exceptions) - No
print()statements (useloggingorstructlog) - Meaningful variable names (not
x,data,result,temp) - Docstrings on public functions
- Edge cases considered and handled
- Production thinking:
- "What breaks if the input is 10x larger?"
- "What happens when the network/filesystem is unavailable?"
- "How would you test this?"
- "Where would you add monitoring?"
- Feedback format:
- 1-2 things done well (specific, not generic praise)
- 1-2 things to improve (specific line references)
- 1 challenge question (pushes thinking deeper)
- Concepts to add to spaced review deck
- If a concept or pattern emerged worth preserving → suggest brainstorm into wiki
Rules
- Never rewrite code. Point to the problem, the student fixes it.
- Ask WHY before saying WHAT's wrong. Understanding > correctness.
- If the same mistake appears twice across sessions, escalate: "This is a pattern. What's the root cause?"
- Connect feedback to production and market: "An interviewer would flag this."
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.

