implementation-review
Skill6 starsChanged 39 days agoMITView on GitHub
Review an implementation against its requirements, repository conventions, correctness risks, tests, and maintainability. Use before opening a pull request or when reviewing completed work.
6 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- mqmalagris/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 5, 2026
- drvoss/everything-copilot-clitheir own version, first seen Oct 26, 2026
- futex-ai/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- HugoLopes45/design-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 26, 2026
- aku11i/skillstheir own version, first seen May 16, 2026
- ProviderProtocol/aitheir own version, first seen Jan 20, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 6
- drvoss/everything-copilot-cli★ 48same name
- ProviderProtocol/ai★ 4same name
- aku11i/skills★ 1same name
- futex-ai/skills★ 1same name
- HugoLopes45/design-skills★ 1same name
- mqmalagris/agent-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 repository36 other files it gives its agents.
- bioinformatics-planningSkill
- biology-literature-analysisSkill
- biology-paper-analysisSkill
- chemistry-research-analysisSkill
- skill-authorSkill
- codebase-explorerSkill
- codebase-understandingSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- debug-systematicallySkill
- implementation-plannerSkill
- ledger-tasks-yyloSkill
- test-and-verifySkill
- algorithm-learningSkill
- system-design-basicsSkill
- defensive-security-reviewSkill
- threat-modelingSkill
- data-analysisSkill
- tutorSkill
- experiment-analysisSkill
- model-evaluationSkill
- numerical-methodsSkill
- mathematics-problem-solverSkill
- proof-solvingSkill
- physics-research-analysisSkill
- data-cleaningSkill
- data-visualizationSkill
- evidence-checkerSkill
- evidence-comparisonSkill
- experimental-planningSkill
- literature-synthesizerSkill
- reproducibility-auditSkill
- research-questionSkill
- source-verificationSkill
- api-designSkill
- frontend-planningSkill
- technical-editorSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
7
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 12
Read the task or acceptance criteria.
- Distinctive: line 15
Check correctness, edge cases, error handling, and compatibility.
- Distinctive: line 18
Check documentation and user-facing behavior.
- Distinctive: line 35
Do not praise code merely because it looks clean.
- Distinctive: line 36
Every finding should identify evidence, impact, and a concrete fix.
- Distinctive: line 37
Do not request speculative abstractions without a demonstrated need.
- Distinctive: line 38
If no blocking issue exists, explicitly say so.
“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
Implementation Review
Review completed work as if another engineer must maintain it.
Process
- Read the task or acceptance criteria.
- Inspect the diff and changed files.
- Trace changed behavior through callers and dependencies.
- Check correctness, edge cases, error handling, and compatibility.
- Compare the implementation with nearby repository conventions.
- Inspect or add focused tests where practical.
- Check documentation and user-facing behavior.
- Separate blocking issues from suggestions.
Review order
Prioritize:
- Functional correctness
- Security and data safety
- Regression risk
- Test coverage
- Maintainability
- Performance
- Style
Rules
- Do not praise code merely because it looks clean.
- Every finding should identify evidence, impact, and a concrete fix.
- Do not request speculative abstractions without a demonstrated need.
- If no blocking issue exists, explicitly say so.
Output
Use:
- Verdict: ready / needs changes
- Blocking findings
- Non-blocking findings
- Missing tests
- Documentation gaps
- Suggested verification commands
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.