agentleFS
Sign inStart free
foliveirafoliveira/harmonia/skills/review/SKILL.md

review

Skill2 starsChanged 46 days agoMITView on GitHub

Harmonia review stage - hierarchical review under the review lead with gates and receipts. Use ONLY when explicitly invoked as /harmonia:review.

192 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use close-spec, design-with-images 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.
  • dzhngSkill

    close-spec

    When a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes) and [review](../review/SKILL.md) (run before closing).

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • dzhngSkill

    design-with-images

    Explore UI and visual design with image generation, then iterate the real implementation against the user-selected concept. Use when brainstorming visual directions, offering mockup variants, or implementing an approved generated design; do not stop at the mockups or the first code approximation.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • LambenthanSkill

    daily-arxiv

    每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文，过滤相关性，auto-ingest 高优先级论文，检测 SOTA 更新

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • LambenthanSkill

    exp-eval

    实验判决门：Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • +3 more from dzhng
  • +5 more from Lambenthan

The file

Create a free account to mount
Files
SKILL.md

Your working contract is the rules; their digest is injected at session start - read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/core/RULES.md in full only if that digest is not in your context. Read the review stage from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/core/lifecycle.yaml (already in context if the flow runner loaded it - do not re-read) - the panel roster and lens name list live there and are authoritative - do not hardcode them; each lens file under ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/core/lenses/ carries its own trigger rules in frontmatter, which are authoritative for dispatch.

  1. Workspace: bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/workspace.sh resolve --repo . (later stage: never mints; surface ambiguity or no-active-task and stop).
  2. Gates before judgment:
    • bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/check-criteria.sh --run --workspace <ws> --repo . - executes every - run: criterion the scope declares, from the repo root, and prints the whole set it ran with each command verbatim. A failing criterion FAILS the review - this gate is hard; exit 3 means there was no scope declaration to run. Keep the order: the receipt audit passes only once a criteria-run receipt fresh for this tree is on disk.
    • bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/verify-receipts.sh --workspace <ws> --repo . - missing or stale receipts FAIL the review.
  3. Dispatch the reviewer (review lead) by path with every artifact this stage declares in, plus the rest of the lead's charter consumes: list - both are authoritative and neither is restated here. The lead convenes the panel declared by this stage, dispatches lenses whose frontmatter triggers match the diff (security auto-fires on its fixed list), runs seats per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/core/patterns/panel.md with model-diverse dispatch, and writes one attributed verdict.md to the workspace.
  4. A test-immutability violation recorded in the workspace is treated like a missing receipt: the review fails.

Pass workspace paths, not prose recaps. Orchestrate only.

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.

Check your setup, free