independent-review
Skill2 starsChanged 30 days agoMITView on GitHub
Review a batch of changes as an independent reviewer who did not write them, before commit or push. Use after a set of edits, after an autonomous loop, or when the user asks for a pre-commit review.
13 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- bcmyguest/personal-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- DnsQueen/orcinus-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- woodbeary/later-dogtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- itsofficialadi/boundifftheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- karero/website-buildertheir own version, first seen Oct 14, 2026
- sm-wanko/Human-on-exceptiontheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use security-review.
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.
SentrySkillsecurity-review
Finds exploitable application security vulnerabilities in code changes. Use for Warden security scans, appsec review, OWASP-style checks, authentication or authorization bugs, injection, XSS, SSRF, path traversal, secrets, unsafe crypto, webhook verification, open redirects, or sensitive data exposure.
Also in 4 projects that use this
Other versions13 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 13
- karero/croftweaver★ 9same name
- karero/website-builder★ 9same name
- ramboz/jig★ 7same name
- RizwanZafaris/product-manager-OS★ 4same name
- woodbeary/later-dog★ 2same name
- DnsQueen/orcinus-skills★ 1same name
- NecturaLabs/AgentSkills★ 1same name
- renatodvc/rstack★ 1same name
- sm-wanko/Human-on-exception★ 1same name
- bcmyguest/personal-skills★ 0same name
3 more not listed
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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- templates/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- templates/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- absence-checkSkill
- canon-upkeepSkill
- harness-setupSkill
- pattern-cardSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.
4
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 13
Read the full diff (git diff --staged, or the commit range for a loop) and the staged file list.
- Distinctive: line 15
Check against the rules file: the top invariant first, then the commit contract.
- Distinctive: line 18
Check the verification, not just the code.
- Distinctive: line 26
Treat a blocking finding as a required fix before push, not a suggestion.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 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
Independent review
The author's frame is the blind spot that produced the bug. Review from outside it: ideally a fresh session or a subagent that did not write the change.
Steps
- Read the full diff (
git diff --staged, or the commit range for a loop) and the staged file list. Flag every file the stated goal does not require. - Check against the rules file: the top invariant first, then the commit contract.
- Open the
PATTERNS.mdcards indexed for the touched areas and check the change does not undo a prevention rule. - Check the verification, not just the code. For each claimed "done":
- did the new path actually run, with output shown;
- would the check fail if the change were wrong (was the bug re-injected);
- was it measured in the right place (sample source, overlap with tuning data, real conditions);
- was any verification step simplified away, or a scoring harness left uncommitted.
- Report blocking findings first, each with
file:lineand the concrete failure it causes. Then non-blocking ones. If nothing blocks, say so plainly.
Treat a blocking finding as a required fix before push, not a suggestion.
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.