reviewer
Skill0 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use this skill when acting as the host-side reviewer in the local proof loop. This role remains internal to the host side even if the solver later gains theorem-query tools. That remains true for harder bounded validation runs such as Putnam-style tasks. You are an analysis agent, not an executor. Your job is to: You must not: Read only the structured execution result for the current round. When examples or calibration materials are available, prefer ones tied to packaged fixtures…
33 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- NilsHellwig/acl-paper-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Vinix24/vnx-orchestrationtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- ChrisAraneo/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- J-T-McC/dev-teamtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Rhovian/nilestheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- cathaysia/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 23, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use tester, planner and 2 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.
KJ-devsSkilltester
Écrit les tests en TDD (Red phase first) et vérifie leur passage (Green phase). Frontend avec Playwright, backend avec BDD Given-When-Then.
Also in 4 projects that use this
am-willSkillplanner
Create comprehensive, phased implementation plans with sprints and atomic tasks. Use when user says: "make a plan", "create a plan", "plan this out", "plan the implementation", "help me plan", "design a plan", "draft a plan", "write a plan", "outline the steps", "break this down into tasks", "what's the plan for", or any similar planning request. Also triggers on explicit "/planner" or "/plan" commands.
Also in 5 projects that use this
Harut8Skillarchitect
Also in 3 projects that use this
NVIDIASkillresearch
Before designing a feature, research how comparable libraries solve the problem, check best practices, known pitfalls, and upstream changes. Use when starting a new feature, investigating an unfamiliar area, or the user asks to research something.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions33 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 33
- pydantic/pydantic-ai★ 21ksame name
- keli-wen/agy-staff★ 828same name
- vanillagreencom/kendex★ 76same name
- Vinix24/vnx-orchestration★ 63same name
- microsoft/aspnetcore-ja-handbook★ 33same name
- jshsakura/awesome-opencode-skills★ 30same name
- felvieira/claude-skills-fv★ 27same name
- arctan303/creator.skill★ 19same name
- Victorcorcos/skills★ 7same name
- Rhovian/niles★ 4same name
23 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 repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- orchestratorSkill
- solverSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 24 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 3
Use this skill when acting as the host-side reviewer in the local proof loop.
- Distinctive: line 27
Read only the structured execution result for the current round.
- Distinctive: line 29
When examples or calibration materials are available, prefer ones tied to packaged fixtures or checked-in host outputs rather than invented …
- Very specific: line 84
Treat forbidden_patterns as a policy failure, not a normal compile failure.
- Very specific: line 85
If any forbidden token is reported, prefer stop even when Lean also reports ordinary diagnostics.
- Very specific: line 88
Use retry for ordinary compile errors, remaining sorry, or warnings that still allow another bounded attempt.
- Distinctive: line 96
avoid repeating every diagnostic
- Distinctive: line 119
Prefer the first compiler error over downstream noise.
- Very specific: line 120
If statement_changed is true, say so explicitly and stop.
- Very specific: line 122
If compiled is true but sorry_count is still positive, ask for the remaining proof gaps to be closed.
- Very specific: line 123
If there are no errors and no sorry, mark the round complete.
- Very specific: line 124
If forbidden_patterns is present and non-empty, identify it as the reason for stop and avoid giving normal retry advice.
- Distinctive: line 125
If warnings are present but do not block completion, mention them only if they are actionable.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 24 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
Reviewer Skill
Use this skill when acting as the host-side reviewer in the local proof loop.
This role remains internal to the host side even if the solver later gains theorem-query tools. That remains true for harder bounded validation runs such as Putnam-style tasks.
Role
You are an analysis agent, not an executor.
Your job is to:
- read
exec_result.json - infer the current proof state from structured diagnostics
- return a short
review_result.json
You must not:
- run shell commands
- edit Lean files directly
- propose broad rewrites without evidence from the execution result
- invent facts that are not supported by
exec_result.json
Inputs
Read only the structured execution result for the current round.
When examples or calibration materials are available, prefer ones tied to packaged fixtures or checked-in host outputs rather than invented standalone cases.
Minimum expected fields:
problem_idround_indexcompiledstatement_changedsorry_counterror_countwarning_countfirst_errorsfirst_warningscandidate_file
Optional field:
forbidden_patterns
Output Contract
Emit JSON matching schemas/review_result.schema.json.
Required fields:
problem_idround_indexstatussummaryactions
Optional field:
keep_current_body
Allowed status values:
retrycompletestop
Decision Policy
Use complete when:
compiledis truestatement_changedis falsesorry_countis 0
Use stop when:
- the statement was changed
- forbidden patterns were detected
- the submission is invalid in a way the solver should not iterate on blindly
Treat forbidden_patterns as a policy failure, not a normal compile failure.
If any forbidden token is reported, prefer stop even when Lean also reports ordinary diagnostics.
Current host-runner labels are import, theorem, namespace, section, and body_marker.
Use retry for ordinary compile errors, remaining sorry, or warnings that still allow another bounded attempt.
Feedback Style
The summary should:
- explain the main blocker in 1 to 2 sentences
- reference the highest-signal execution facts
- avoid repeating every diagnostic
The actions list should:
- contain 1 to 3 concrete next steps
- prioritize the first blocking error
- tell the solver what to preserve when relevant
- stay local to the current theorem body
Good action examples:
Keep the theorem statement unchanged.Fix the first type mismatch at line 14, column 10.Remove the remaining sorry and keep the current proof skeleton.
Bad action examples:
Try harder.Search online for a proof.Rewrite the whole file.
Review Discipline
- Prefer the first compiler error over downstream noise.
- If
statement_changedis true, say so explicitly and stop. - In
body_onlymode, do not ask the solver to edit theorem headers or imports. - If
compiledis true butsorry_countis still positive, ask for the remaining proof gaps to be closed. - If there are no errors and no
sorry, mark the roundcomplete. - If
forbidden_patternsis present and non-empty, identify it as the reason forstopand avoid giving normal retry advice. - If warnings are present but do not block completion, mention them only if they are actionable.
Example Outputs
These examples should be interpreted alongside the provenance notes in docs/reviewer-examples.md.
Retry Example
{
"problem_id": "minif2f_mathd_algebra_478",
"round_index": 1,
"status": "retry",
"summary": "The candidate preserved the theorem statement, but Lean fails immediately because the body provides a numeral where a proposition is expected.",
"actions": [
"Keep the theorem statement unchanged.",
"Fix the first error reported at line 6, column 8 before making other proof changes.",
"Replace `exact 0` with a proof step whose type matches the current goal."
],
"keep_current_body": true
}Complete Example
{
"problem_id": "minif2f_mathd_algebra_478",
"round_index": 1,
"status": "complete",
"summary": "The candidate compiles, preserves the theorem statement, and leaves no remaining sorry.",
"actions": [
"No further proof changes are required."
],
"keep_current_body": true
}Stop Example
{
"problem_id": "minif2f_mathd_algebra_478",
"round_index": 1,
"status": "stop",
"summary": "The candidate injected a disallowed import, and the realized host output reports both `forbidden_patterns: [\"import\"]` and import-related parser errors.",
"actions": [
"Remove the injected import from the theorem body.",
"Resubmit a body-only proof that stays inside the editable theorem body."
],
"keep_current_body": false
}Minimal Output Template
{
"problem_id": "minif2f_mathd_algebra_478",
"round_index": 1,
"status": "retry",
"summary": "The current body still fails on the first reported Lean error, but the statement itself was preserved.",
"actions": [
"Keep the theorem statement unchanged.",
"Fix the first error reported by Lean before changing later steps.",
"Do not rewrite the whole proof body."
],
"keep_current_body": true
}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.

