agentleFS
Sign inStart free
imMamdouhaboammarimMamdouhaboammar/matts-skills-into-chatgpt/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

code-review

Skill8 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Review changed code against repository coding standards and original specification intent. Use when reviewing a branch, diff, PR, pull request, merge-base changes, or verifying code against documented standards — even if the user just says \"review this\". Do NOT use for authoring new code or diagnosing failing runtime bugs.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 183 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    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
  • could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
  1. Distinctive:

    Strict Two-Axis Separation: Keep Standards and Spec findings isolated.

    line 18
  2. Very specific:

    Pinned Merge-Base Diff: Always resolve refs with git rev-parse and review git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD.

    line 19
  3. Distinctive:

    Evidence-Based Citations: Every finding must quote the exact file, line range, and standard/spec clause violated.

    line 20
  4. Distinctive:

    No Blind Approvals: If the spec is missing, report "No spec provided - verified against standards only" explicitly.

    line 22

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 183 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.

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

Code Review

Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point:

  1. Standards: Does the code conform to documented repository standards and clean architecture smells?
  2. Spec: Does the code faithfully and completely implement the originating issue/spec without scope creep?

Both axes execute as isolated parallel sub-agents to prevent context contamination, with findings reported side by side.

Core Invariants

  1. Strict Two-Axis Separation: Keep Standards and Spec findings isolated; never merge or cross-rank them into a blended score.
  2. Pinned Merge-Base Diff: Always resolve refs with git rev-parse and review git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD.
  3. Evidence-Based Citations: Every finding must quote the exact file, line range, and standard/spec clause violated.
  4. Tooling Non-Duplication: Skip formatting, syntax, or lint errors that automated pre-commit tooling already catches.
  5. No Blind Approvals: If the spec is missing, report "No spec provided - verified against standards only" explicitly.

Architecture & Map of Content (MOC)

[ Pin Fixed Point ] ──► [ Identify Spec & Standards ] ──► [ Parallel Review Subagents ] ──► [ Side-by-Side Synthesis ]
                                                                 │
                                ┌────────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────┐
                                ▼                                                                 ▼
                     [ Standards Subagent ]                                              [ Spec Subagent ]
                     - Documented repo rules                                             - Missing requirements
                     - Fowler code smells                                                - Unasked scope creep
                     - Architectural boundaries                                          - Flawed implementations
ComponentResponsibilityEvaluation Source
Standards AxisArchitecture smells, naming, cohesionCODING_STANDARDS.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, smell baseline
Spec AxisFunctional completeness, scope boundariesIssue description, specs/*.md, user requirements
AggregationSide-by-side balanced reportingVerbatim findings categorized by axis

Step-by-Step Procedure (TWI)

Step 1: Pin the Fixed Point & Diff

  • Action: Resolve the base ref and confirm a non-empty diff (git diff <base>...HEAD).
  • Key Point: Fail fast if the ref is invalid or the working tree is empty.
  • Why: Reviewing against an incorrect base compares irrelevant changes.

Step 2: Extract Standards and Spec Sources

  • Action: Locate repository guidelines (CODING_STANDARDS.md) and originating requirements/issues.
  • Key Point: Equip the standards agent with Fowler smell baselines (Mysterious Name, Duplicated Code, Feature Envy, Primitive Obsession, Speculative Generality).
  • Inline Checklist:
    • Diff base confirmed
    • Standards docs identified
    • Spec/issue requirements extracted

Step 3: Dispatch Parallel Sub-Agents

  • Action: Spawn Standards subagent and Spec subagent concurrently with dedicated prompts.
  • Key Point: Restrict each subagent to its designated domain (< 400 words per report).
  • Why: Combining standards and spec evaluation into a single pass leads to halo bias where clean code masks missing features.

Step 4: Aggregate and Synthesize Report

  • Action: Present findings under ## Standards and ## Spec headers with actionable remediation recommendations.
  • Key Point: State the single most severe issue within each axis clearly.
  • Why: Clear prioritization helps authors address critical design issues first.

Anti-Rationalization Guardrails

Tempting RationalizationBinding RuleEngineering Rationale
"The code looks beautifully formatted, so it must be correct."Standards pass $\neq$ Spec pass.Elegant code can completely fail to implement required business logic.
"It does what the ticket asked, so ignore messy architecture."Spec pass $\neq$ Standards pass.Quick hacks that bypass standards generate severe technical debt.
"Merge both reviews into one combined score."Strict two-axis separation.Blending scores obscures which dimension requires remediation.
"Point out minor indentation issues in the review."Skip issues handled by automated linters.Manual review should focus on semantics, architecture, and intent.

Download now (ZIP)

  • Other versions193 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 193

    1. mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
    2. TheAlgorithms/Python★ 226ksame name
    3. microsoft/vscode★ 194ksame name
    4. github/spec-kit★ 145ksame name
    5. ggml-org/llama.cpp★ 133ksame name
    6. shareAI-lab/analysis_claude_code★ 80ksame name
    7. shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code★ 80ksame name
    8. vectorize-io/hindsight★ 57ksame name
    9. dbeaver/dbeaver★ 52ksame name
    10. roboflow/supervision★ 51ksame name

    183 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.

  • Used alongsideProjects 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

    • PydanticSkill

      add-new-model

      Add support for a newly-released language or image generation model in pydantic-ai (e.g. openai:gpt-5.6, anthropic:claude-sonnet-5, openai:gpt-image-2). Use when a provider ships a new model id and you need to wire literals, profile flags, adapters, and tests to recognize it. Handles SDK-lag, gateway list conventions, capability probing, and direct image-model geometry.

      Also in 9 projects that use this

    • transitive-bullshitSkill

      compare-screenshots

      Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.

      Also in 5 projects that use this

    • Microsoft AzureSkill

      azsdk-common-apiview-feedback-resolution

      Analyze and resolve APIView review feedback on Azure SDK PRs. **UTILITY SKILL**. USE FOR: APIView comments, API review feedback, SDK API surface changes. DO NOT USE FOR: general code review, non-APIView feedback. INVOKES: azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_apiview_get_comments, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_customized_code_update, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_typespec_delegate_apiview_feedback, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_run_typespec_validation, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_package_generate_code.

      Also in 6 projects that use this

    • Microsoft AzureSkill

      azsdk-common-generate-sdk-locally

      Generate and finalize Azure SDKs locally from TypeSpec, including build, checks, tests, changelog, metadata, and version updates by default. WHEN: "generate SDK locally", "build SDK", "run SDK tests", "run CI checks", "validate package", "run checks", "update changelog", "fix SDK build errors", "resolve SDK generation errors", "customize TypeSpec", "rename SDK client", "rename SDK model", "hide operation from SDK", "fix analyzer errors", "resolve customization drift", "create subclient", "update metadata", "update version". INVOKES: azsdk_verify_setup, azsdk_package_generate_code, azsdk_package_build_code, azsdk_package_run_check, azsdk_package_run_tests, azsdk_customized_code_update, azsdk_package_update_changelog_content, azsdk_package_update_metadata, azsdk_package_update_version.

      Also in 6 projects that use this

    • +3 more from dzhng
    • +2 more from Azure
  • In this repository42 other files it gives its agents.

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