review-full
Skill0 starsChanged 49 days agoMITView on GitHub
Smart review entry point. Auto-detects scope from the diff (frontend / backend / docs), spawns the right Opus reviewers in parallel, and keeps the same reviewers across fix rounds until the gates pass. --read-only for a quick scored peek with no edits. Use when unsure which review to run.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- kdy1/kdy1-scriptstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- thoughtfulllc/gridlandtheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprinttheir own version, first seen Jul 3, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- thoughtfulllc/gridland★ 363same name
- faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint★ 73same name
- kdy1/kdy1-scripts★ 33same 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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- audit-fullSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- merge-prSkill
- parallel-builderSkill
- pushSkill
- review-code-fixSkill
- review-docsSkill
- review-ux-fixSkill
- shipSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- update-docsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
2
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
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Distinctive: line 79
All detected gates must pass.
- Very specific: line 96
Never run /update-docs here.
- Distinctive: line 98
Never push or merge.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
/review-full
Detects what changed, spawns the right reviewers in parallel, and runs the fix loops until the gates pass.
When to use: default entry point for any review. Not sure? Use this. Use a worker directly only if: you want to skip auto-detection. Called by: you, standalone.
/shipruns the same lenses inside its A/R batch. Dispatches to:/review-code-fix·/review-ux-fix·/review-docs
Naming note:
/reviewand/code-revieware Claude Code built-ins. This skill's trigger is/review-full.
Modes
| Command | Mode | What happens |
/review-full | Fix loop | code + UX loops (per detected scope), fixes applied |
/review-full --read-only | Peek | spawn reviewers, report scores, change nothing |
/review-full --code-only | Fix loop | code only, even on a frontend diff |
/review-full --ux-only | Fix loop | UX only |
Step 1: Detect scope
BASE=$(git merge-base origin/main HEAD) || { echo "cannot resolve origin/main, git fetch first"; exit 1; }
CHANGED=$(git diff --name-only "$BASE"; git ls-files --others --exclude-standard)<!-- CONFIGURE: replace globs with your project's paths -->Frontend: src/components/**, src/pages/**, *.tsx, *.css
Backend: src/api/**, src/services/**, *.service.ts, *.controller.ts
Docs: docs/**, *.md| Detected | Runs |
| Frontend (with or without backend) | code + UX |
| Backend only | code |
| Docs only | /review-docs |
| Nothing | "no diff, nothing to review" |
Step 2: Spawn reviewers in ONE tool-call block
Both reviewers read the same diff and neither writes, so they never wait for each other:
reviewer-code:code-reviewer(Opus), lenscode, checklist<SKILLS_DIR>/review-code-fix/SKILL.md §Review focusreviewer-ux:code-reviewer(Opus), lensux, checklist<SKILLS_DIR>/review-ux-fix/SKILL.md §Review categories(frontend only; run the/review-ux-fixStep 0 precheck first)
SKILLS_DIR is the parent of this skill's base directory. Pass absolute paths: the agent has no Skill tool.
Each gets its own findings file (see Reviewer Continuity §Mechanics).
Step 3: Fix loop (skipped with --read-only)
This session runs both loops from /review-code-fix and /review-ux-fix:
- Union the findings, group by file, one writer per file, fix, lint.
- One commit per round covering both lenses, so the re-review can cite the SHA.
- Continue the same reviewers with
SendMessagefor rounds 2-3, in parallel. Round 4 = fresh escalation. A lens that already passed is not re-run unless the fixes touched its files.
Gates
| Review | Gate |
| Code | ≥ 9.5 (9.0-9.4 fails) |
| UX | = 10/10, zero open findings |
| Docs | binary pass/fail |
<!-- CONFIGURE: thresholds -->All detected gates must pass.
Report
## Review Report
Scope: frontend + backend · Mode: fix
| Review | Rounds | Score | Bar | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code | 2 (continued) | 9.5 | ≥ 9.5 | ✅ |
| UX | 3 (continued) | 10 | = 10 | ✅ |Guidelines
- Never run
/update-docshere. Docs are Phase D. --read-onlynever commits, stages, or edits.- Never push or merge.
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.

