context-review
Skill0 starsChanged 33 days agoMITView on GitHub
Reviews agent context documents — CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, opencode steering docs, system prompts, skill files, or any markdown that guides AI agent behavior — against best practices for conciseness, structure, and AI-friendliness. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review, audit, improve, or get feedback on a context doc, steering doc, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or system prompt. Also trigger when the user asks "how's my context doc", "check this CLAUDE.md", "review this steering doc", "is this well-written for an agent", or any request to evaluate agent-facing instructions.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- koukekoukej-glitch/context-engineertheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- morodomi/dev-crewtheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- JetBrains/contexttheir own version, first seen Sep 29, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- JetBrains/context★ 38same name
- morodomi/dev-crew★ 1same name
- koukekoukej-glitch/context-engineer★ 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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- 1on1Skill
- gmail-inboxSkill
- lamport-problem-statementSkill
- learning-labSkill
- logseq-db-querySkill
- nix-sandboxSkill
- obsidian-zettelkastenSkill
- peer-reviewSkill
- portkey-statusSkill
- proton-inboxSkill
- teams-extractorSkill
- theory-of-constraintsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
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 34
If the user specified a file, use it.
- Distinctive: line 38
Read both reference files before reviewing:
- Distinctive: line 44
Read the full content of the file being reviewed.
- Distinctive: line 60
If a section is significantly improvable, show a before/after
- Distinctive: line 62
Keep feedback direct and actionable.
- Distinctive: line 66
Ask if the user wants you to apply any of the changes directly.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
context-review
Reviews agent context documents against best practices and returns concrete, prioritized feedback.
What counts as an agent context document
Any file that provides instructions, conventions, or reference material to an AI agent:
CLAUDE.md/.claude/CLAUDE.mdAGENTS.md- Opencode steering docs (
.mdfiles in.opencode/steering/) - Kiro steering docs (
.mdfiles in.kiro/steering/) - System prompts
- Skill
SKILL.mdfiles - Any other markdown file written to guide agent behavior
Step-by-step
Step 1 — Identify the target
If the user specified a file, use it. If not, ask which file to review.
Step 2 — Load references
Read both reference files before reviewing:
resources/best-practices.md— principles for writing effective context docsresources/review-checklist.md— detailed checklist to apply
Step 3 — Read the target file
Read the full content of the file being reviewed.
Step 4 — Review and report
Apply the checklist to the file. Structure your feedback as:
What's working
- Bullet list of strengths (be specific, reference actual content)
Issues — High priority
- Things that meaningfully hurt agent comprehension or usability
Issues — Lower priority
- Polish items, minor redundancy, style
Suggested rewrites (optional)
- If a section is significantly improvable, show a before/after
Keep feedback direct and actionable. Reference specific sections or line content. Don't pad with encouragement.
Step 5 — Offer to apply fixes
Ask if the user wants you to apply any of the changes directly.
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.

