agentleFS
Sign inStart free
beyarkaybeyarkay/claude-skills/reviewer/SKILL.md

reviewer

Skill2 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Run the adversarial, read-only codex reviewer on the current diff and fix what it finds. Invoke as /reviewer with optional focus text and scope flags — it kicks off codex immediately (spends codex/OpenAI quota) and injects the report for Claude to act on. codex reads the whole repo to dig but CANNOT edit anything.

33 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use tester, planner 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.
  • KJ-devsSkill

    tester

    Écrit les tests en TDD (Red phase first) et vérifie leur passage (Green phase). Frontend avec Playwright, backend avec BDD Given-When-Then.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • am-willSkill

    planner

    Create comprehensive, phased implementation plans with sprints and atomic tasks. Use when user says: "make a plan", "create a plan", "plan this out", "plan the implementation", "help me plan", "design a plan", "draft a plan", "write a plan", "outline the steps", "break this down into tasks", "what's the plan for", or any similar planning request. Also triggers on explicit "/planner" or "/plan" commands.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • tesla0225Skill

    orchestrator

    Issue/要件を受けたら分解→担当割当→実装→検証→統合を回す手順。未整備なら /repo-init でbootstrap。

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • Harut8Skill

    architect

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • NVIDIASkill

    research

    Before designing a feature, research how comparable libraries solve the problem, check best practices, known pitfalls, and upstream changes. Use when starting a new feature, investigating an unfamiliar area, or the user asks to research something.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 24 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Triage: every finding — real blocker vs nit vs false positive.

    line 24
  2. Distinctive:

    If codex produced no report (e.g.

    line 33

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 24 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

reviewer

The read-only, adversarial codex reviewer has been run on the current diff — it reads the whole repo to dig, but cannot edit anything. Its report:

/Users/brk/.claude/skills/reviewer/review.sh --quiet --focus-stdin <<'__REVIEWER_FOCUS_EOF__'
$ARGUMENTS
__REVIEWER_FOCUS_EOF__

That report is above. Now act on it:

  1. Triage every finding — real blocker vs nit vs false positive. codex digs but can be wrong: verify each claim against the actual code before touching anything.
  2. Fix the genuine issues yourself (the reviewer never edits). Make the smallest correct change per issue.
  3. Account for the rest: for anything you skip, one line saying why (false positive / out of scope / intended).

Finish with a short summary of what you changed and what you deliberately left. If codex produced no report (e.g. no changes to review, or it errored), say so and stop — don't invent findings.

Args after /reviewer are forwarded to the reviewer: free text = focus; scope flags pick what to review (default: working tree vs merge-base with the base branch); --spec PATH_OR_URL points codex at the original issue/spec by link. Full reference in README.md / review.sh --help.

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