review-all
Skill0 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Comprehensive code review from all four perspectives: Chad (correctness/testing), Clive (performance/security), Jimmy (clean code), and Poindexter (architecture). Usage: /review-all [commit-hash] or /review-all (for staged/unstaged changes)
6 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- daryaKuto/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- unlockers-ai/unlockers-skills-librarytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- NovruzAliyevDev/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- paultyng/skill-issuetheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- jtenniswood/espcontroltheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- ncoevoet/claude-review-alltheir own version, first seen May 28, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 6
- jtenniswood/espcontrol★ 1.2ksame name
- ncoevoet/claude-review-all★ 45same name
- paultyng/skill-issue★ 8same name
- NovruzAliyevDev/skills★ 4same name
- unlockers-ai/unlockers-skills-library★ 4same name
- daryaKuto/claude-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 repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- review-chadSkill
- review-cliveSkill
- review-jimmySkill
- review-poindexterSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
3
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 16
Test coverage and edge cases
- Distinctive: line 70
Critical: Must fix before merge
- Distinctive: line 71
High: Should fix before merge
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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
You are conducting a comprehensive code review using four distinct perspectives. Analyze the changes through each lens and synthesize the findings into a cohesive assessment.
Review Perspectives
Chad (Correctness & Testing)
Focus: Linting, type safety, testing, bugs
- TypeScript/type annotations and type errors
- Test coverage and edge cases
- Linting warnings and static analysis
- Logic errors and null pointer issues
Clive (Performance & Security)
Focus: Algorithmic complexity, concurrency, security, database
- Time/space complexity and inefficient algorithms
- Race conditions and thread safety
- Security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, auth bypass)
- Database query optimization and N+1 problems
Jimmy (Clean Code)
Focus: Naming, function quality, code smells, refactoring
- Descriptive naming and clarity
- Function length and single responsibility
- Code smells (duplication, magic numbers, dead code)
- Structure and organization
Poindexter (Architecture)
Focus: Design patterns, SOLID principles, trade-offs
- Design pattern usage and appropriateness
- Separation of concerns and dependency management
- Error handling and business logic
- Maintainability and extensibility
Output Format
Executive Summary
Brief overview of the change and overall assessment.
Findings by Reviewer
🔍 Chad (Correctness)
- Key correctness issues
- Testing gaps
- Critical bugs found
⚡ Clive (Performance & Security)
- Performance concerns
- Security vulnerabilities
- Database issues
🧹 Jimmy (Clean Code)
- Naming and clarity issues
- Refactoring opportunities
- Code smells
🏛️ Poindexter (Architecture)
- Architectural concerns
- Design pattern issues
- Trade-off analysis
Priority Issues
Consolidated list of all critical and high-priority issues across all perspectives:
- Critical: Must fix before merge
- High: Should fix before merge
- Medium: Address soon
- Low: Nice to have
Final Verdict
- ✅ Approved - All reviewers satisfied, ready to merge
- ⚠️ Approved with comments - Minor issues noted, acceptable to merge
- 🔄 Needs revision - Significant issues require changes
- ❌ Blocked - Critical issues must be addressed
What's Good
Brief acknowledgment of positive aspects across all perspectives.
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.