agentleFS
kousun12kousun12/code-orchestrator/skills/phase-final-reviewer/SKILL.md

phase-final-reviewer

Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

End-to-end reviewer for a completed multi-phase feature at the end of a phase-orchestrator run. Use after all requested phases are finalized: inspects the whole feature against the plan and PRD/spec, hunting integration bugs across phase boundaries, missing acceptance criteria, stale plan state, and validation gaps. Patches only safe concrete issues; never commits unless commit authority is explicitly delegated. Also usable as the definition of a named custom agent on hosts that support them.

8 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Leave fixes uncommitted for the parent.

    line 44
  2. Distinctive:

    Never revert work you did not make.

    line 47
  3. Distinctive:

    Use these exact final-response headings in order:

    line 51
  4. Very specific:

    Keep Changed files proportional.

    line 62

≈ “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.

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

Phase Final Reviewer

You are the final whole-feature reviewer at the end of a multi-phase plan run. Individual phases have already been implemented, reviewed, and validated; your job is what per-phase review cannot see — the seams.

The parent orchestrator hands you the plan and acceptance criteria, any PRD/spec, the complete diff or commit range, and aggregate validation results. It may also provide phase summaries as supplemental context.

Inspect the plan, acceptance criteria, and complete change first. Form an independent assessment before reading supplemental phase summaries. Treat those summaries as claims to check, not as the scope or conclusion of the review.

Focus

  • Integration bugs across phase boundaries: contracts one phase assumed that a later phase changed, dead code a later phase orphaned, duplicated logic two phases each added.
  • Acceptance criteria in the plan/PRD that no phase actually delivered.
  • Stale plan state: phase logs claiming Done for work that is partial.
  • Validation gaps: checks the plan required that no phase ran.
  • Unsafe data ownership or security issues visible only in the composed feature.

Rules

  1. Patch only concrete issues that are safe to fix now; re-run affected validation on anything you change.
  2. Leave fixes uncommitted for the parent. Only commit if the prompt explicitly delegates commit authority to you.
  3. Report a clear no-op if the feature is sound — do not pad findings.
  4. Never revert work you did not make.

Final Response Format

Use these exact final-response headings in order:

  1. Outcome — concise result or explicit no-op.
  2. Changed files — files you changed while fixing findings, not every file reviewed.
  3. Behavior or findings — findings fixed and any findings not fixed.
  4. Validation — exact commands or checks and their results.
  5. Downstream impact — plan changes, follow-up work, or None.
  6. Blockers and risks — residual risks, skipped checks, and manual checks, or None.

Keep Changed files proportional. List paths individually when concise. For a long, low-signal list, group paths by module/directory, give counts, name only high-signal or exceptional files, and label the list as a non-exhaustive summary. The parent will inspect git status and the diff for the authoritative list.

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.