review-me
Skill2 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Review knowledge already saved in the current repo by quizzing one item at a time with spaced-repetition scheduling, keeping all session state in a throwaway dot-folder that is deleted when done. Use when the user wants to review, quiz, or test themselves on previously learned notes, or says "review me".
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- connorjjarvis/interview-metheir own version, first seen Jul 22, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- connorjjarvis/interview-me★ 0same name
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 repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- create-nextjs-specificationSkill
- create-product-demoSkill
- find-github-repoSkill
- find-npm-packageSkill
- image-styleSkill
- nextjs-route-scaffoldSkill
- perfect-promptSkill
- place-meSkill
- setup-aeo-geoSkill
- setup-harnessSkill
- songwritingSkill
- step-by-stepSkill
- stock-analysisSkill
- study-meSkill
- teach-meSkill
- three-linesSkill
- visualstormingSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 10
If levels.md does not exist at the repo root, offer a level check first:
- Very specific: line 14
If yes → run place-me. If no → continue.
- Distinctive: line 20
If I gave a topic/file as context → review exactly that.
- Distinctive: line 21
If I gave no context:
- Very specific: line 22
Read levels.md and propose the weakest topics first (Blank/Glimpsed before Grounded before Fluent).
- Very specific: line 23
If levels.md doesn't exist → ask me once which topic, folder, or file pattern to review.
- Distinctive: line 25
Don't queue the entire knowledge base by default — a growing KB makes that unusable.
- Distinctive: line 37
If it exists (a previous session was interrupted), resume from its queue/grading data and continue.
- Very specific: line 39
Ensure .review/ is gitignored: if .gitignore has no entry for it, add .review/.
- Distinctive: line 40
Never commit this folder. When the session ends, delete it.
- Distinctive: line 46
When I answer, reveal the section as the correct answer so I can self-check.
- Distinctive: line 47
Ask me to grade: Again / Hard / Good / Easy.
- Distinctive: line 59
When the queue is empty (every card graded Good or Easy), there is nothing left to review:
- Very specific: line 63
Delete the .review/ dot-folder.
- Very specific: line 64
Never modify the knowledge notes themselves — review-me only reads them.
≈ “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.
Files
Review knowledge that is already saved in this repository. Companion to teach-me: teach-me writes notes, review-me quizzes me on them. Every bit of scheduling/grading is ephemeral.
Before starting
If levels.md does not exist at the repo root, offer a level check first:
No level memory found. Want a quick level check with place-me before reviewing? (yes / no)
If yes → run place-me. If no → continue.
Scope
Decide what to review before building the queue:
- If I gave a topic/file as context → review exactly that.
- If I gave no context:
- Read
levels.mdand propose the weakest topics first (Blank/Glimpsed before Grounded before Fluent). Ask: "Review [weak topics] today?" Stop and wait. - If
levels.mddoesn't exist → ask me once which topic, folder, or file pattern to review. Stop and wait.
- Read
Don't queue the entire knowledge base by default — a growing KB makes that unusable.
Targets
A review item ("card") is one ## section inside a knowledge note, within the chosen scope.
- Knowledge notes live under the
notes/folder (any depth): every.mdinnotes/is a note. - Each
##section across the matched notes becomes one card.
Session state (ephemeral)
- On session start, look for a
.review/folder at the repo root.- If it exists (a previous session was interrupted), resume from its queue/grading data and continue.
- Otherwise create
.review/and keep all queue + grading data there.
- Ensure
.review/is gitignored: if.gitignorehas no entry for it, add.review/. - Never commit this folder. When the session ends, delete it. No review history is persisted anywhere.
Review loop
- Pick the next due card from the queue.
- Generate one question from that section's content (content-based, not just the heading). Ask it. Stop and wait.
- When I answer, reveal the section as the correct answer so I can self-check.
- Ask me to grade: Again / Hard / Good / Easy.
Each card has two learning steps. Since there is no clock, each step maps to a queue distance:
- Again → reset to step 0; requeue after ~2 cards.
- Hard → repeat the current step; requeue after ~4 cards.
- Good → advance one step; requeue after ~8 cards. If already on the last step, the card graduates (removed from the queue).
- Easy → graduate immediately (removed from the queue).
- Repeat. One question at a time — never ask two at once.
Ending
When the queue is empty (every card graded Good or Easy), there is nothing left to review:
- Tell me the session is complete with a short summary (how many cards, how many needed repeats).
- Update the level memory. If
levels.mdexists at the repo root, revise the prose summary for the reviewed topic(s) based on how this session went — what I recalled easily, what needed repeats. Update the section in place (never duplicate) and commit just that file:review: update <topic_name> level. Iflevels.mddoes not exist, skip this step. - Delete the
.review/dot-folder. - Never modify the knowledge notes themselves — review-me only reads them. The only file it may write is
levels.md.
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.

