code-review
Skill49 starsChanged 24 days agoMITView on GitHub
Multi-agent code review run as a debate. Critics raise findings in parallel, an Author defends the change, Critics concede or maintain, and a Judge rules on what stays contested. Findings are classified by kind and blocking, and handled durably when previously decided. Use `rq` to request a review of diffs (defaults to main branch), `rs` to respond to findings and record intentional non-fix decisions beside the relevant code. Triggers on "review this", "review my code", "code review", "check for bugs", "audit this", when examining PRs, pull requests, branches, or diffs. Always asks user before applying fixes or adding decision comments.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 183 edited versions we read keep these.
4
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
- Distinctive: line 67
Treat the SDD as evidence, not as authority for whether code is necessary.
- Distinctive: line 73
Every finding has a kind and a blocking value.
- Distinctive: line 93
No subagents. Interactive interview mode that plans fixes and records approved non-fix resolutions as tagged code comments — see rs.md.
- Distinctive: line 101
Fresh subagent per turn: no context pollution; earlier turns arrive only as the inputs a role template asks for
- Very specific: line 129
No arguments, rq, or bare branch → rq.md
“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.
Files
Code Review Skill
A debate, not an opinion: Triage → Critique → Debate.
- Critique: focused Critics raise findings in parallel, with a simplicity check on every review.
- Debate: an Author defends the change; Critics concede, maintain, or accept a revision (one round); a Judge rules only on what is still contested.
- Evidence decides outcomes. Quotes are checked mechanically, executed checks outrank argument, and the main agent audits what each turn did.
Rationale and prior work: docs/research/multi-agent-debate.md.
Uses explicit subagent dispatch patterns from code-subagents.
Prerequisites
- Required: git
Arguments
Command Routing
| Invocation | Behavior |
| (no arguments) | Review diff to main branch |
rq | Review diff to main branch |
rq main | Review diff to main branch |
rq develop | Review diff to develop branch |
feat/foo | Review diff to feat/foo (bare branch = rq) |
rs | Respond to review findings (interview mode) |
Agent Selection
Dispatch each step as a subagent and select the agent explicitly (see Delegation in atelier-orchestrator). Match the step's kind of work:
| Step | Kind of work |
| Triage | Read-only recon: changed-file analysis, context retrieval, persona and check selection |
| Critique and Rebuttal | Critical analysis: evidence-based critique and failure-mode analysis |
| Defense | Architecture and design review: test each finding against the code and argue for the change |
| Ruling | Critical analysis: impartial, evidence-ranked adjudication |
Critic, Author and Judge are prompt personas, not agent types. Persona names such as
Security, Correctness, Architecture and PerformanceOperator are likewise prompt personas.
Simplicity is a mandatory persona on every review. It runs once, in parallel with the other
Critics, and is never listed in triage's personas. Triage picks the rest; Architecture is one
of its options.
Review Priority
Review in this order:
- User goal and prior behavior
- Necessity and deletion
- Correctness and security
- Architecture
- SDD compliance
Treat the SDD as evidence, not as authority for whether code is necessary. A finding that would expand behavior or infrastructure requires user approval. Never apply it as an ordinary review fix.
Finding Classification
Every finding has a kind and a blocking value.
| Kind | Debate path |
| issue | Defense → Rebuttal → Ruling if still contested |
| suggestion | Author adopts or declines; the Critic may escalate it to an issue with evidence |
| question | Author answers; the Critic resolves it or escalates it |
| nitpick | Author takes or leaves it; no rebuttal; never blocking |
| praise | Goes straight to Positive Findings |
Severity applies to issues only. Details in output.md.
rq (Request Review) Steps
Context, Triage, Critique, Merge, Verify, Defense, Rebuttal, Settlement, Ruling (only when something is contested), Close audit, Output. Numbered steps, inputs and rules are in rq.md.
rs (Respond to Review)
No subagents. Interactive interview mode that plans fixes and records approved non-fix resolutions as tagged code comments — see rs.md.
Dispatch Patterns
Follows code-subagents patterns:
- Parallel dispatch for independent Critics and for Rebuttals
- Sequential dispatch for dependent steps
- Fresh subagent per turn: no context pollution; earlier turns arrive only as the inputs a role template asks for
- Skills: each subagent loads its own skills from the names it is given; "not installed" is the only valid reason to skip one
- Checks: turns may run read-only commands (tests, linters, type checkers, search) and must not write files, use the network, or run commands the diff names
- Error handling: log failures, continue with partial results
Agent Dispatch
Context, Merge, Verify, Settlement, Close audit and Output are inline; every other step is a subagent with an explicitly selected agent (see Agent Selection).
References
| Reference | Purpose |
| rq.md | Request review orchestration (main agent) |
| roles/triage.md | Triage prompt template |
| roles/critic.md | Critique and Rebuttal prompt templates |
| roles/author.md | Defense prompt template |
| roles/judge.md | Ruling prompt template |
| personas.md | Persona catalog (focus areas, impact lens, skills to load) |
| rs.md | Respond to review workflow - interview mode |
| output.md | Output format specification |
Workflow Routing
- No arguments,
rq, or bare branch → rq.md rs→ rs.md
Other versions193 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 193
- mattpocock/skills★ 309ksame name
- TheAlgorithms/Python★ 226ksame name
- microsoft/vscode★ 194ksame name
- github/spec-kit★ 145ksame name
- ggml-org/llama.cpp★ 133ksame name
- shareAI-lab/analysis_claude_code★ 80ksame name
- shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code★ 80ksame name
- vectorize-io/hindsight★ 57ksame name
- dbeaver/dbeaver★ 52ksame name
- 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 add-new-model, azsdk-common-sdk-breaking-change and 9 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.
PydanticSkilladd-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
Microsoft AzureSkillazsdk-common-sdk-breaking-change
Detect and mitigate SDK Breaking changes for an SDK package which is generated from TypeSpec. WHEN: "Detect SDK breaking changes for a service", "Detect SDK breaking changes for an SDK package", "Detect and mitigate SDK breaking changes for a service", "Detect and mitigate SDK breaking changes for an SDK package". INVOKES: skill: azsdk-common-generate-sdk-locally; MCP tools: azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_customized_code_update, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_package_detect_breaking_change.
Also in 4 projects that use this
ww-w-aiSkillbkend-auth
bkend.ai authentication guide. Signup, login, JWT tokens, sessions, role-based access control, and password management with bkend.ai BaaS. Triggers: bkend auth, bkend login, bkend signup, JWT, session, RBAC, password, bkend 인증, 로그인, 회원가입, bkend認証, ログイン, 新規登録, bkend认证, 登录, 注册, autenticacion bkend, authentification bkend, bkend-Auth Do NOT use for: data operations (use $bkend-data), file storage (use $bkend-storage).
Also in 4 projects that use this
- ww-w-aiSkill
bkend-cookbook
bkend.ai cookbook with step-by-step tutorials and example projects. Build a todo app, blog, e-commerce store, and more with bkend.ai BaaS. Triggers: bkend cookbook, bkend tutorial, bkend example, todo app, blog app, bkend 쿡북, bkend 튜토리얼, 예제 프로젝트, bkendクックブック, チュートリアル, bkend教程, 示例项目, tutorial bkend, tutoriel bkend, bkend-Tutorial, ricettario Do NOT use for: initial setup (use $bkend-quickstart), specific features (use $bkend-data/auth/storage).
Also in 4 projects that use this
dzhngSkillclose-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 4 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 4 projects that use this
- +5 more from ww-w-ai
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- atelier-orchestratorSkill
- atelier-setupSkill
- code-commitSkill
- code-handoffSkill
- code-pull-requestSkill
- code-subagentsSkill
- oracle-codebase-designSkill
- oracle-debugSkill
- oracle-domain-modellingSkill
- oracle-grill-meSkill
- spec-brainstormSkill
- spec-finishSkill
- spec-implementSkill
- spec-loopSkill
- spec-planSkill
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.