agentleFS
Sign inStart free
cekrauseeecekrauseee/harness/skills/review/SKILL.md

review

Skill0 starsChanged 14 days agoMITView on GitHub

Review an implemented change by coherent responsibilities and verify justified corrections.

192 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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.
  • dzhngSkill

    close-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

  • dzhngSkill

    design-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

  • LambenthanSkill

    daily-arxiv

    每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文，过滤相关性，auto-ingest 高优先级论文，检测 SOTA 更新

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • LambenthanSkill

    exp-eval

    实验判决门：Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • +3 more from dzhng
  • +5 more from Lambenthan

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 157 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    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. Distinctive:

    When fixes are authorized, request or apply the smallest sound correction and verify the affected behavior.

    line 14
  2. Very specific:

    Use orchestrate and its review workflow only when a tree was requested.

    line 16

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 157 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

Identify the intended behavior and the meaningful parts of the change. Decompose only where boundaries are clearly identifiable and improve understanding. Review may partition the feature differently from implementation; do not force arbitrary slices to populate a tree.

Inspect each relevant part deeply enough to assess its contracts, failure cases, integration, and alignment with the application's patterns. Follow cross-boundary effects rather than accepting isolated modules as proof of the whole feature.

Raise actionable, supported findings: the triggering situation, observed or likely failure, and why it matters. Distinguish defects from preferences. Avoid speculative lists, implementation-mirroring tests, and unrelated redesign.

When fixes are authorized, request or apply the smallest sound correction and verify the affected behavior. Iterate within the configured limits; a patch does not prove the finding resolved until its evidence is checked. Keep review notes in Harness work records, not product documentation.

Use orchestrate and its review workflow only when a tree was requested. A direct review or UI adjustment can remain one agent's iterative work. The final reviewer is responsible for combined behavior and unresolved risks.

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