agentleFS
Sign inStart free
john-data-chenjohn-data-chen/hermes-agent-backup/skills/caveman-review/SKILL.md

caveman-review

Skill2 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 1 is common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 1

    Common

    Most of the 15 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    Write code review comments terse and actionable.

    line 10

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 15 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

Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.

Rules

Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. — or <file>:L<line>: ... when reviewing multi-file diffs.

Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):

  • 🔴 bug: — broken behavior, will cause incident
  • 🟡 risk: — works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)
  • 🔵 nit: — style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore
  • ❓ q: — genuine question, not a suggestion

Drop:

  • "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."
  • "This is just a suggestion but..." — use nit: instead
  • "Great work!", "Looks good overall but..." — say it once at the top, not per comment
  • Restating what the line does — the reviewer can read the diff
  • Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe", "I think") — if unsure use q:

Keep:

  • Exact line numbers
  • Exact symbol/function/variable names in backticks
  • Concrete fix, not "consider refactoring this"
  • The why if the fix isn't obvious from the problem statement

Examples

❌ "I noticed that on line 42 you're not checking if the user object is null before accessing the email property. This could potentially cause a crash if the user is not found in the database. You might want to add a null check here."

✅ L42: 🔴 bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.

❌ "It looks like this function is doing a lot of things and might benefit from being broken up into smaller functions for readability."

✅ L88-140: 🔵 nit: 50-line fn does 4 things. Extract validate/normalize/persist.

❌ "Have you considered what happens if the API returns a 429? I think we should probably handle that case."

✅ L23: 🟡 risk: no retry on 429. Wrap in withBackoff(3).

Auto-Clarity

Drop terse mode for: security findings (CVE-class bugs need full explanation + reference), architectural disagreements (need rationale, not just a one-liner), and onboarding contexts where the author is new and needs the "why". In those cases write a normal paragraph, then resume terse for the rest.

Boundaries

Reviews only — does not write the code fix, does not approve/request-changes, does not run linters. Output the comment(s) ready to paste into the PR. "stop caveman-review" or "normal mode": revert to verbose review style.

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

Cooling: 1 new project took it in the last 4 weeks, 0.3× the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Aug 30: 1 new projectWeek of Sep 6: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 13: 1 new projectWeek of Sep 20: 1 new projectWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 1 new projectWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projects
Aug 2026Sep 2026Oct 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 4 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

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