claude-review
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Run an independent Claude Code review using Claude Opus 5 with xhigh effort and tools enabled. Use when the user says 'claude review', 'run Claude on this', 'cross-model review', or wants a second-model review of a file, directory, branch, or uncommitted diff.
- Reads credentials
20 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- AhsanT4riq/claude-plugin-codextheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ryanportfolio/winuse-mcptheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- plannotator/dev-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ryanportfolio/Harness-Firmwaretheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- ryanportfolio/HarnessFirmware.comtheir own version, first seen Nov 5, 2026
- ryanportfolio/Corewise.Academytheir own version, first seen Nov 5, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use addskill, apply-firmware and 10 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.
ryanportfolioSkilladdskill
Create, import, update, or install repo or personal skills: runtime ownership, resources, discovery checks.
Also in 6 projects that use this
ryanportfolioSkillapply-firmware
Bring current folder (plain folder, existing repo, old or partial firmware copy) up to full Harness Firmware in place. Mirror external repo → adopt-repo.
Also in 6 projects that use this
- +10 more from ryanportfolio
Other versions20 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 20
- xiaolai/cc-suite★ 56same name
- smithjohn78390/smith--skills★ 41same name
- yangliu2060/smith--skills★ 40same name
- ulpi-io/browse★ 15same name
- mryll/skills★ 8same name
- plannotator/dev-skills★ 7same name
- KroxiDev/engineering-skills★ 4same name
- sandover/agent-skills★ 4same name
- abdurshd/skills★ 2same name
- Kenmege/codex-claude-companion★ 2same name
10 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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- claude-plan-reviewSkill
- claude-strategy-reviewSkill
- codex-plan-reviewSkill
- codex-reviewSkill
- codex-strategy-reviewSkill
- persona-registrySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 9 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 19 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
9
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 22
Do not add --bare for normal use.
- Very specific: line 26
If $ARGUMENTS contains a file path or directory: review that path.
- Very specific: line 27
If $ARGUMENTS contains pr, branch, or panel: review current branch changes versus main.
- Very specific: line 28
If $ARGUMENTS is empty: review all uncommitted changes.
- Very specific: line 44
call Claude Code with --model claude-opus-5 --effort xhigh --tools default --no-session-persistence --permission-mode auto
- Distinctive: line 45
run Claude in stream-json mode by default and emit heartbeat/progress updates to stderr
- Very specific: line 46
write durable run artifacts under ~/.cache/agent-review-runs/
- Distinctive: line 48
treat untracked files as content-first review targets, not empty diffs
- Very specific: line 53
If Claude times out or all retries fail, report TOOLING FAILURE with the artifact path.
- Very specific: line 72
Default permission mode: auto
- Distinctive: line 75
Default timeout: dynamic. The soft timeout is auto-estimated per attempt from payload size and effort.
- Very specific: line 86
Default review mode is automatic: full → diff-only → per-file / diff-segment
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 19 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
Claude Review
Independent code review using Claude Code, pinned to claude-opus-5 with --effort xhigh.
The runner is size-aware: it starts with the richest payload that fits, then automatically
falls back to diff-only, per-file batching, or segmented single-file review when the scope is
too large.
It is also untracked-file aware. Brand-new files that have no git diff are reviewed from
their current file contents, with content segmentation when needed; the runner must not retry
an empty diff-only payload for an untracked file.
Why This Exists
Claude reviews from a different model family than Codex. The value comes from anti-anchoring: pass the code and diff to Claude, never prior reviewer notes or planning context. The runner keeps Claude tools enabled so it can inspect files, run read-only diagnostics, run tests, and use web tools when useful, but the prompt instructs Claude to review rather than modify.
Do not add --bare for normal use. Claude Code bare mode intentionally ignores OAuth/keychain login and requires ANTHROPIC_API_KEY or an API-key helper, so it fails after ordinary claude auth login. Isolation comes from independent input selection and disabled session persistence, not from disabling tools.
Scope Rules
- If
$ARGUMENTScontains a file path or directory: review that path. - If
$ARGUMENTScontainspr,branch, orpanel: review current branch changes versusmain. - If
$ARGUMENTSis empty: review all uncommitted changes.
Workflow
- Run:
python3 ~/.codex/skills/claude-review/scripts/claude_review.py [scope]- The script will:
- collect the relevant git diff
- include current file contents only when the payload is small enough
- log review planning details to stderr
- estimate a soft timeout upfront from payload size and effort, then keep extending the deadline while Claude is still streaming output (a stall watchdog and hard cap bound it)
- call Claude Code with
--model claude-opus-5 --effort xhigh --tools default --no-session-persistence --permission-mode auto - run Claude in stream-json mode by default and emit heartbeat/progress updates to stderr
- write durable run artifacts under
~/.cache/agent-review-runs/ - retry in smaller modes on timeout
- treat untracked files as content-first review targets, not empty diffs
- aggregate batched Claude findings back into one structured review
- Present Claude's findings directly.
If Claude times out or all retries fail, report TOOLING FAILURE with the artifact path. A
tooling failure is not a PASS, CONDITIONAL PASS, or FAIL review verdict.
Output Contract
The script asks Claude to return:
## Claude Review — Verdict: <PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / FAIL>plus a findings table, or No issues found. when clean.
Notes
- Default model:
claude-opus-5 - Default effort:
xhigh - Allowed effort values:
low,medium,high,max,xhigh - Default tools:
default - Default permission mode:
auto - Allowed permission modes:
auto,default,dontAsk,plan; edit-accepting and permission-bypass modes are intentionally rejected for review runs over untrusted code - Exit code
0means the wrapper completed and emitted a review; callers must parse thePASS/CONDITIONAL PASS/FAILverdict from stdout. Exit code1means wrapper/tooling failure. - Default timeout: dynamic. The soft timeout is auto-estimated per attempt from payload size
and effort; past it, the deadline keeps extending while Claude is still streaming output.
The run is killed only when output stalls for
300s past the soft budget (CLAUDE_REVIEW_STALL_SEC) or total elapsed time hits the3600s hard cap (CLAUDE_REVIEW_MAX_TIMEOUT_SEC). Pass--timeout-sec N(orCLAUDE_REVIEW_TIMEOUT_SEC) to pin the soft budget instead of estimating it. - Liveness contract for the calling agent: the wrapper streams heartbeats, partial-output progress, and deadline-extension notices to stderr at least every heartbeat interval (default 20s). Treat those as proof the review is alive — do not impose a shorter outer shell timeout and do not kill the process on brief silence; the wrapper enforces its own watchdog and always exits on its own.
- Default review mode is automatic:
full→diff-only→per-file/diff-segment - Untracked file mode is automatic:
untracked-file→untracked-file-segment - No-diff explicit file mode is automatic:
context-only→context-segment - Progress is written to stderr with payload sizes, selected mode, PID/PGID, heartbeats, and artifact paths
- Each Claude attempt writes
prompt.txt,stdout.stream,stderr.stream,events.jsonl,result.md, and timeout diagnostics under~/.cache/agent-review-runs/ - On SIGINT/SIGTERM/timeout, the wrapper terminates only its own Claude process group
- Troubleshooting flags:
--no-stream--heartbeat-sec N--safe-mode--disable-slash-commands
- You can override with:
CLAUDE_REVIEW_MODELCLAUDE_REVIEW_EFFORTCLAUDE_REVIEW_TOOLSCLAUDE_REVIEW_PERMISSION_MODECLAUDE_REVIEW_MAX_FILESCLAUDE_REVIEW_MAX_PAYLOAD_BYTESCLAUDE_REVIEW_DIFF_ONLY_BYTESCLAUDE_REVIEW_TIMEOUT_SECCLAUDE_REVIEW_STALL_SECCLAUDE_REVIEW_MAX_TIMEOUT_SECCLAUDE_REVIEW_SEGMENT_BYTESCLAUDE_REVIEW_HEARTBEAT_SEC
Intent and focus (automatic)
Derive these from the user's request — they should not need to type flags. From how they phrase the
ask, infer intent (what the work is trying to do) and focus (what to weight) and pass them as
--intent / --focus. For example, "review the auth refactor on this branch, focus on whether the
logic is right and skip style" -> --intent "auth refactor" --focus "logic correctness, skip style".
The text is appended to the prompt as author framing, never as another reviewer's findings (the review stays independent). A guardrail still surfaces every CRITICAL/HIGH finding even when it falls outside the focus.
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.

