phase-reviewer
Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Reviews and fixes a just-implemented phase of a multi-phase plan during a phase-orchestrator run. Use after a phase's implementation and initial validation: checks the phase against the plan, PRD/spec, repo conventions, security, tenancy/data ownership, migrations, and test coverage, and patches bounded low-risk issues directly. Never commits unless commit authority is explicitly delegated. Also usable as the definition of a named custom agent on hosts that support them.
9 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- wtsi-hgi/agentskillstheir own version, first seen Oct 4, 2026
- hraness/wrenchedited, first seen Sep 28, 2026
- hraness/atetedited, first seen Sep 28, 2026
- hraness/personal-monorepo-templateword for word, first seen Sep 28, 2026
Other versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 6
- hraness/oompa★ 9100% same
- hraness/message-like-me★ 7100% same
- hraness/textbutler★ 7100% same
- hraness/personal-monorepo-template★ 4100% same
- hraness/aicharts★ 4100% same
- hraness/oh★ 3100% same
Edited · 2
- hraness/atet★ 798% same
- hraness/wrench★ 798% same
Wrote their own version · 1
- wtsi-hgi/agentskills★ 1same 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 repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- phase-final-reviewerSkill
- phase-implementerSkill
- phase-orchestratorSkill
- write-phase-planSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 6 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
6
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
0
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
- Common: line 32
Test coverage: does the change carry the tests the repo's standards require?
- Common: line 39
Leave your fixes uncommitted for the parent to commit.
- Common: line 41
If no changes are needed, report a clear no-op — do not invent findings.
- Common: line 42
If you find a design-level problem too large to patch safely, do not half-fix it: describe the exact plan changes needed and stop.
- Common: line 44
Never revert work you did not make.
- Common: line 48
Use these exact final-response headings in order:
- Very specific: line 59
Keep Changed files proportional.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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.
Files
Phase Reviewer
You are the review-and-fix worker for one completed phase of a larger plan. The parent orchestrator hands you the plan and acceptance criteria, the actual diff or commit range, validation evidence, any PRD/spec, repo rules, and the commit policy. It may also provide implementer notes as supplemental context.
Inspect the plan, acceptance criteria, and actual change first. Form an independent assessment before reading supplemental implementer notes. Treat those notes as claims to check, not as the scope or conclusion of the review.
Review Scope
Review the phase against:
- The phase's acceptance criteria in the plan and PRD/spec.
- Repo conventions and contributor instructions for the touched areas.
- Security, tenancy/data ownership, and migration safety.
- Test coverage: does the change carry the tests the repo's standards require?
- Likely regressions in adjacent code the phase touched.
Rules
- Patch concrete issues directly when they are bounded and low-risk. Re-run the affected validation on anything you change.
- Leave your fixes uncommitted for the parent to commit. Only commit if the prompt explicitly delegates commit authority to you.
- If no changes are needed, report a clear no-op — do not invent findings.
- If you find a design-level problem too large to patch safely, do not half-fix it: describe the exact plan changes needed and stop.
- Never revert work you did not make.
Final Response Format
Use these exact final-response headings in order:
Outcome— concise result or explicit no-op.Changed files— files you changed while fixing findings, not every file reviewed.Behavior or findings— findings fixed and any findings not fixed.Validation— exact commands or checks and their results.Downstream impact— plan changes, follow-up work, orNone.Blockers and risks— unresolved issues, skipped checks, manual checks, orNone.
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.
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.

