fix
Skill73 starsChanged 5 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Fix actionable in-scope findings in the current Incan worktree, usually after /review. Use when the user asks to fix review findings, clean up reported issues, apply in-scope review feedback, or says /fix.
82 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- tyrantpiper/travel-pwatheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Eclipter/agentstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Bhenderlong/vallorix-mcp-plugintheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- KadirHarmanc/nazar-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- zedarvates/frugal-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ribato22/vibechecktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use feature, frontend-code-review and 9 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.
bradtraversySkillfeature
Manage current feature workflow - start, review, explain or complete
Also in 10 projects that use this
chendongqiSkillfrontend-code-review
Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., `.tsx`, `.ts`, `.js`). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.
Also in 4 projects that use this
GoogleSkillpr-creator
Also in 4 projects that use this
PJuniszewskiSkillcook
Feature development with guardrails. Plan → Review → Code → Ship.
Also in 3 projects that use this
vbrevikSkillwork
Use when the user says 'plan', 'todo', 'copy plan', 'append plan', 'resume plan', 'priorities', or 'what's next'.
Also in 4 projects that use this
MetaSkillroadmap
Build, continue, inspect, or visualize a source-grounded mathematical roadmap and theorem DAG in an existing Autoform Markdown blueprint. Use for source research, repository-wide inventories of existing and planned mathematics, scope, coverage, milestones, and roadmap articles; do not create repository infrastructure or prove Lean declarations.
Also in 4 projects that use this
Other versions82 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 82
- react/react★ 252ksame name
- facebook/react★ 252ksame name
- motiondivision/motion★ 35ksame name
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude★ 3.9ksame name
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v2★ 3.9ksame name
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3★ 3.9ksame name
- crbnos/carbon★ 2.8ksame name
- Akylas/OSS-DocumentScanner★ 2.6ksame name
- kdlbs/kandev★ 1.1ksame name
- GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules★ 975same name
72 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 repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- add-learningSkill
- bump-rfcSkill
- closeoutSkill
- create-github-issueSkill
- create-planSkill
- create-pr-descriptionSkill
- flag-compiler-bugSkill
- fleet-auditSkill
- hello-worldSkill
- loopSkill
- orchestrate-parallel-workSkill
- ralph-loopSkill
- review-and-fixSkill
- review-architectureSkill
- review-code-smellsSkill
- review-docs-claimsSkill
- review-incan-source-qualitySkill
- review-orchestrateSkill
- review-rfcSkill
- review-rust-proseSkill
- review-scopeSkill
- reviewSkill
- review-test-styleSkill
- start-workSkill
- testSkill
- write-commit-messageSkill
- write-rfcSkill
- yeet-prSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
16 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 75 edited versions we read keep these.
9
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
- Very specific: line 22
Do not use /fix as a substitute for first-pass diagnosis when the problem is still unclear.
- Very specific: line 28
Start from the current dirty worktree and the concrete findings already on record from /review, inline review comments, or the user's …
- Very specific: line 29
Read .agents/state/review-report.md first when it exists.
- Distinctive: line 36
Do not widen scope. Avoid opportunistic refactors beyond what is needed to resolve the findings cleanly.
- Very specific: line 37
Update .agents/state/review-report.md as findings move between open, fixed, and blocked.
- Very specific: line 39
After edits, run make fmt.
- Distinctive: line 40
Run the narrowest relevant verification for the fixes you made.
- Very specific: line 42
If make pre-commit fails for reasons unrelated to your fixes, keep the local fixes and report the failure as residual risk in the report …
- Distinctive: line 43
If findings remain unresolved, classify each as one of:
- Distinctive: line 53
Prefer small direct edits over broad rewrites.
- Distinctive: line 54
Keep docs and code aligned.
- Distinctive: line 58
Do not add a new split-brain workaround while fixing a split-brain bug.
- Very specific: line 68
If make pre-commit fails because of unrelated sandbox or network issues, say so explicitly in .agents/state/review-report.md.
- Distinctive: line 72
When consuming an orchestrated report, update:
- Distinctive: line 78
Do not invent new findings unless the edit work uncovers a tightly related issue needed to finish the requested fix cleanly.
- Distinctive: line 98
If nothing needed fixing, say so directly.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 75 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
Fix — Incan Compiler
Purpose
/fix is the repair half of the review workflow. It consumes concrete findings from /review or obvious unresolved worktree issues and fixes them directly when they are in scope and safe.
The primary source of truth is the persistent report in the current worktree:
.agents/state/review-report.md
Use /fix when:
/reviewalready identified blockers or warnings,- the user says "fix the findings",
- the user wants review cleanup without a fresh diagnostic pass.
Do not use /fix as a substitute for first-pass diagnosis when the problem is still unclear. Use /review first.
/fix is different from /review: it should consume the current report, not wipe it. If the report is stale or obviously belongs to a previous run, rerun /review instead of trying to repair against bad state.
Workflow
- Start from the current dirty worktree and the concrete findings already on record from
/review, inline review comments, or the user's instructions. - Read
.agents/state/review-report.mdfirst when it exists. - For orchestrated reviews, treat
## Findingsas the default task list. - For generic single-review reports, fall back to
## Filesonly if there is no top-level## Findingslist. - Fix only findings that are:
- in scope,
- safe without extra user confirmation,
- concrete enough to act on.
- Do not widen scope. Avoid opportunistic refactors beyond what is needed to resolve the findings cleanly.
- Update
.agents/state/review-report.mdas findings move betweenopen,fixed, andblocked. - Append short timestamped entries to
## Activityas you work. Log each major action instead of relying on a final prose recap. - After edits, run
make fmt. - Run the narrowest relevant verification for the fixes you made.
- Run
make pre-commit. - If
make pre-commitfails for reasons unrelated to your fixes, keep the local fixes and report the failure as residual risk in the report file. - If findings remain unresolved, classify each as one of:
- out of scope,
- risky without user confirmation,
- external blocker,
- separate compiler bug.
- Preserve findings even when they are non-blocking or design-oriented.
design-tension,maintainability, and docs drift are still findings; they may simply move to a lower-priority fix queue instead of being dropped.
Fixing rules
- Preserve the user's worktree. Never revert unrelated changes.
- Prefer small direct edits over broad rewrites.
- Keep docs and code aligned. If you fix behavior, update user-facing docs that claim the old behavior. If behavior is out of scope, correct the docs instead of inventing implementation.
- For Rust prose comments, write natural paragraphs and let
make fmtwrap them. Do not manually chop prose into short lines. - For Markdown, keep prose as natural paragraphs. Do not introduce short-prosed or mechanically chopped text.
- Do not fix boundary bugs with local-only coverage. If a finding involves import, reexport/facade, package consumer, dependency-owned type, test batch, vocab/desugarer, formatter, generated Rust, Rust metadata, or downstream behavior, add the relevant boundary coverage or document why that boundary is impossible for this fix.
- Do not add a new split-brain workaround while fixing a split-brain bug. Prefer moving the decision into the canonical planner, metadata surface, registry, or shared helper that all relevant paths already consume.
Verification
/fix should usually run:
make fmt- narrow relevant tests or checks
make pre-commit
If make pre-commit fails because of unrelated sandbox or network issues, say so explicitly in .agents/state/review-report.md. That does not justify leaving local findings unfixed.
The report must remain a structured artifact. Do not replace it with a narrative summary. If ## Activity is missing, repair the report before you finish. For orchestrated runs, the canonical report should stay thin and findings-driven; do not recreate a giant per-file checklist there.
When consuming an orchestrated report, update:
## Findings## Disagreementswhen relevant## Verification
Do not invent new findings unless the edit work uncovers a tightly related issue needed to finish the requested fix cleanly. Classification on findings is for handling, not suppression.
Output format
Produce a concise report with:
## Fix — <subject / branch / files>
### Fixed
<item> — <file>:<line> — <what changed>
### Verification
<command> — <result>
### Residual risk
<anything still unresolved, with classification>If nothing needed fixing, say so 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.

