agentleFS
darellchua2darellchua2/civiltekk-opencode-claude-skills/skills/code-review-inline-skill/SKILL.md

code-review-inline-skill

Skill7 starsChanged 56 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

In-session code-review delegate — loads reviewer-baseline-skill first, then the deployed code-review-subagent.md as its checklist, and runs the severity-gated diff review inline. Thin wrapper: the agent file stays the single checklist source; never spawns a subagent. Triggers: inline code review, review diff in-session, v2 pipeline Step 9.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Never run a review without its checklist.

    line 33
  2. Very specific:

    Load the checklist: read the resolved code-review-subagent.md body and follow its Review Checklist, Scope Assessment, Risk-Based Depth, …

    line 38
  3. Distinctive:

    Read touched files only, at the paths the caller scopes.

    line 45

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Code Review (inline)

You are executing the code-review delegate's workflow in this session. The subagent's isolation (fresh context, edit: deny sandbox, read-only git allowlist) is replaced by the discipline below — advisory, but the pipeline's verdict citation depends on it.

You are a wrapper, not a copy. The review checklist — severity rubric, Direct-Caller Verification gate, ponytail lens, Return Contract — lives in the deployed agents/code-review-subagent.md and is loaded as-is. Never re-implement it from memory; never paraphrase it into this file's authority.

Decision tree

  1. Skip check — checklist resolution (blocking): resolve the deployed code-review-subagent.md (§Checklist resolution). Unresolvable → report Status: failed, "review unavailable — checklist not found", and STOP. Never run a review without its checklist; never spawn a subagent in its place.
  2. Baseline first: load reviewer-baseline-skill — its Prompt Defense, Epistemic Honesty, Mandatory Post-Review Learning Gate, and Web-lookups policy apply in full.
  3. Load the checklist: read the resolved code-review-subagent.md body and follow its Review Checklist, Scope Assessment, Risk-Based Depth, Severity Scoring Rubric, Direct-Caller Verification, and Return Contract.
  4. Scope (diff-only): review the caller-supplied diff — a formatted diff plus --stat — not the whole codebase. For worktree-based runs the caller passes the repo and range; compute git -C <repo> diff origin/<base>...feat/<KEY> yourself only when the caller names the range. Read touched files only, at the paths the caller scopes.
  5. Findings: severity-gated (BLOCK/WARN/NOTE) per the checklist's rubric; every Critical/Major carries a one-line Business Impact.
  6. LEARNINGS: you have write access the subagent lacks — write qualifying candidates directly (LEARNINGS/<category>/<slug>.md body + end-of-file .gitignore negation), deduped against existing entries. List written files in Output.
  7. Fix loop (only when the caller grants fix authority): fix findings severity ≥ Major (Minor by judgment), max 2 fix-and-re-review iterations. Fixes landing after a green exit gate re-enter the full gate before push per verification-loop-skill — the final pushed SHA must carry a green tier=full memo.

No-subagent pin

This skill runs fully in-session. Do NOT delegate the review, or any part of it, to a subagent — no Task calls, no child sessions. The isolated-child variant is a different invocation (code-review-subagent via the v1 pipeline or direct delegation), not an escalation path available here.

Checklist resolution

Capability binding (per the portability contract — the agent self-selects its row; unknown harnesses fall through to the fallback):

  • OpenCode: ~/.config/opencode/agents/code-review-subagent.md (deploy-mode CLI path)
  • Claude Code: ~/.claude/agents/code-review-subagent.md
  • Other/none: unresolvable → the Step-1 skip rule (report unavailable, stop) — never proceed checklist-less, never spawn in its place

Scope bounds

  • Review the diff and its direct callers; transitive blast radius belongs to the architecture review — note suspicions under Issues instead of traversing them.
  • Fixes (when granted) touch only files in the reviewed diff.
  • PLAN atomicity is not checked here — note "PLAN atomicity not checked" per the checklist's scope rule.

Enforcement deltas (vs code-review-subagent)

Subagent enforcementInline discipline (you)
Fresh context windowState the reviewed diff range + file list before starting so scope drift is visible
edit: deny + read-only git allowlistYou MAY write — restrict writes to LEARNINGS entries and granted fix commits; list every write in Output; every LEARNINGS write lands in the run's single end-of-ticket chore(learnings) commit — never in fix commits, never left dirty past the ruling commit step
Isolated fix-report loopFixes land in the working tree directly; re-gate rule above is mandatory, not orchestrator-enforced
Tier modelSame model as the caller — flag uncertainty instead of suppressing findings

Output contract

Status: [success | partial | failed] — partial if direct-caller coverage is incomplete, per the checklist's gate rule Output: issue count by severity + file list + LEARNINGS files written (or LEARNINGS candidates: 0) Summary: ≤3 sentences, plain language per the checklist's Voice section Issues: blockers, warnings, uninspected callers, or "None" Requirements Gaps: [{source, blocked_check, suggested_question, recommended_answer}] — required, [] if none Patterns applied/violated: [{id, status, evidence}] — required, [] if none

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.