tidy
Skill189 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Reviews a local diff, branch diff, or PR with file:line findings in confirmed and plausible tiers, gates any test the diff adds or changes, and in apply mode lands the fixes and diff-scoped simplifications. Use when asked to "review my changes", "code review", "tidy this", "simplify my diff", "deslop this", "structural review", "security audit", or "audit these tests in my PR". For the PR itself use pr-creator; for CI and review threads use pr-babysitter; for UI defects use ui-design; for repo architecture use codebase-architecture; for pruning the whole suite to a target use test-audit.
24 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nagi-studio/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- agentmemoir/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- NobiResearch/Ovenbirdtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- croffasia/itsaplantheir own version, first seen Oct 31, 2026
- crimx/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 28, 2026
- smkg75/wikidoctheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use map, architect and 4 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.
AWSSkillmap
Map verified service capabilities against customer-provided control framework and threat model. Produces mapping-results.json, controls-catalog.md, and framework-mapping.md. Supports pluggable frameworks: CCMv4, NIST 800-53, CIS Benchmarks, ISO 27001, etc. Split into 4 focused sub-skills for better accuracy; this skill orchestrates them.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Harut8Skillarchitect
Also in 3 projects that use this
AWSSkillretro
Conduct a retrospective on a coding session.
Also in 4 projects that use this
AWSSkillship
Finalize dev work on an issue branch — update docs, push, and open a PR.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillverify
End-to-end app testing pipeline for browser-based web apps on cloud browsers via Azure Playwright Workspaces: verify the live app, author tests for working flows, heal failing tests, then re-run with video and produce one consolidated report. Three phases (app verification, test authoring, test healing) plus a scoped final sanity run; each phase emits a sub-report. Use when asked to "verify my app", "make sure my app works and has good test coverage", "do a full QA pass", "add tests where I'm missing coverage", "fix failing tests and add new ones", "smoke test before deploy", "QA my deployment", or any combined verify-and-test ask. Requires Azure CLI (`az login`) and a Playwright Workspace resource ID — bootstraps configs on first invocation. Browser-based web apps with Playwright only — not for unit/API tests, native mobile/desktop, load/perf, or full accessibility audits.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillreview
Fixture review skill.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions24 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 24
- croffasia/itsaplan★ 2.2ksame name
- nagi-studio/skills★ 470same name
- collectifweb/claude-skills★ 4same name
- crimx/skills★ 4same name
- wyattjoh/skills★ 3same name
- agentmemoir/skills★ 2same name
- jxxsteven7/zotero-librarian★ 2same name
- smkg75/wikidoc★ 2same name
- angusfretwell/skills★ 1same name
- davidsolheim/skills★ 1same name
14 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.
In this repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agent-readySkill
- agent-skills-creatorSkill
- agents-mdSkill
- app-verificationSkill
- autoshipSkill
- ax-auditSkill
- chat-historySkill
- ci-speedupSkill
- codebase-architectureSkill
- dx-auditSkill
- eli5Skill
- ghostwriterSkill
- multi-tenant-architectureSkill
- planningSkill
- pr-babysitterSkill
- pr-creatorSkill
- presentation-creatorSkill
- product-designSkill
- save-mdSkill
- scaffold-cliSkill
- scaffold-nextjsSkill
- seoSkill
- test-auditSkill
- typography-auditSkill
- ui-animationSkill
- ui-designSkill
- ui-verificationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 19 edited versions we read keep these.
6
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
- Distinctive: line 48
Added lines: Read every hunk, then the enclosing function.
- Distinctive: line 53
When this session wrote the diff, your own intent fills the gaps the code leaves.
- Distinctive: line 73
Guard deletion requires system evidence: Before removing a fallback, retry, lock, or validation, identify the writers, reachable states, …
- Distinctive: line 76
Tests follow risk: Add or update a regression check when the edit changes behaviour that can independently regress.
- Distinctive: line 80
Run the checks the changes affect plus repository-required gates, preserving exit codes and distinguishing baseline failures, then write …
- Distinctive: line 98
Do not report style preferences, unrelated pre-existing issues, risks without a repro or exploit path, broad rewrites outside the diff's …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 19 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
Tidy
Review the diff, then fix it when asked. One pass produces the report; the same pass, in apply mode, lands the fixes along with the simplifications a clean diff still hides.
- IS: review of a local diff, branch diff, PR, or named security scope, returning severity-tiered findings with
file:lineevidence; in apply mode, the smallest complete fixes for those findings plus diff-scoped simplification. - IS NOT: creating PRs (
pr-creator), CI failures and review threads (pr-babysitter), user-facing UX, accessibility, or rendered quality (ui-designAudit mode), library or CLI ergonomics (dx-audit), architecture briefs and repo-wide guardrails (codebase-architecture), reviewing plans (planning), suite-wide test pruning to a measured target (test-audit).
Report or apply
Report is the default: "review my changes", "code review", a mode phrase below, or a PR number. Done is the report in the format under Output, carrying the range reviewed, each baseline command's last line, and the references read. The working tree stays as it was. Do not edit a file in report mode, even for a one-character fix; the moment the tree changes the user loses the read-only report they asked for.
Apply when the user says "tidy", "simplify", "fix", "apply the findings", or asks for the changes to be made. Done is the confirmed findings and supported simplifications in the working tree, the affected checks passing or their failures shown to be baseline, and a summary of what changed, what was left and why, and the check results. Apply mode edits any file the diff touches or a fix requires, and runs the repository's documented lint, type, and test commands without asking: they run locally against the working tree, and landing the changes is what was asked for. It does not commit, push, open PRs, add or upgrade dependencies, run migrations, or write outside the working tree. A report from earlier in the session is input, not authority: apply what current evidence supports and say why anything was not applied.
Harness precedence
Claude Code bundles /code-review (correctness plus cleanups, with --fix) and /security-review. A typed slash command runs the bundled skill; this one runs when named or when a mode phrase matches, and adds the Structural and Deslop modes, a whole-repo Security audit, the plausible tier the bundled commands filter out, REVIEW.md support, and the same report on any harness with git and the file tools. Findings from a bundled review already run this session enter the verdict step as candidates rather than being re-derived.
Mode dispatch
Pick one lens from the user's wording. references/severity-rubric.md loads in every mode; the table adds the mode's own rubric.
| Mode | Triggers | Adds | Scope |
| Standard (default) | /tidy, "review my changes", "code review", "tidy this" | nothing | Local or branch diff |
| Structural | "structural review", "thermo-nuclear review", "deep code quality audit", "harsh maintainability review", "code judo" | references/structural-quality-rubric.md | Local or branch diff |
| Deslop | "deslop this", "clean up AI code", "remove slop", "review for AI patterns" | references/ai-slop-patterns.md | Local or branch diff |
| Security audit | "security audit", "find vulnerabilities", "deepsec", "threat model", "audit for security" | references/security-checklist.md | Named subsystem or whole repo, regardless of diff |
Conditional loads, in any mode:
references/context-errors.mdwhen the diff was agent-written, or adds, changes, or removes a module, system boundary, guard, or fallback.references/security-checklist.mdfor auth, input handling, external APIs, uploads, dependency or lockfile changes, or environment config.references/performance-checklist.mdfor fetching, rendering, images, dependencies, or bundle-affecting imports.references/test-gate.mdwhen the diff adds or changes a test. A diff with no test changes loads nothing extra here.agents/openai.yamlonly for the optional second-opinion pass in step 3. Otherwise it is launcher metadata for external runners and never loads.
Workflow
- Discover target. Staged and unstaged changes first (
git diff --stat,git diff --staged --stat); if clean, the branch diff againstgit merge-base HEAD origin/<default>. For a PR,gh pr diff <n>with the branch checked out. Record the range or ref pair; it goes in the report. - Gather context. Open the mode references and the conditional loads with the file tools. A filename in this skill is a pointer, not loaded content; if a required read fails, report the coverage gap rather than claiming the rubric was applied. Capture intent from the user's words, the commit messages, and the PR description. Load scoped
AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.mdand a rootREVIEW.mdwhere one exists: both override this skill's defaults when they conflict, so a pattern they mandate is not a finding. Reuse checks already run on this revision; when a candidate needs execution, run the documented command and preserve its exit status. Review. Apply the loaded rubric and the high-signal criteria; shard large diffs. Five passes, because each finds what the others cannot:
- Claims. Map each claim in the description or commit messages to a hunk, and each hunk to a claim. A claim with no hunk is a finding. A hunk with no claim goes under the readiness summary as an unstated change.
- Added lines. Read every hunk, then the enclosing function. A bug on an unchanged line of a touched function is in scope: this diff re-exposed it.
- Removed lines. For every deleted or replaced line, name the invariant it enforced, then find where the new code re-establishes it. If you cannot, that is the finding: a removed guard, a dropped error path, a narrowed validation, a deleted test that covered a real case.
- Call sites. For each changed function, grep its callers for a new precondition, changed return shape, new exception, or ordering dependency; then check its callees.
- Outside the diff. For each new module, guard, or fallback, open what the diff did not: the directory's existing exports, sibling implementations, every writer of the guarded value. A reimplemented helper, a change filed in the wrong system, and a fallback for a state nothing produces all read as clean code until you look at the file the diff never opened.
references/context-errors.mdcarries the searches and the evidence each finding needs.
When this session wrote the diff, your own intent fills the gaps the code leaves. Run the passes in a fresh subagent given the range and the user's request verbatim, not your account of what the change does, and verdict its candidates in step 4.
Optional: where a different-model CLI is installed (
codex exec,droid exec, or equivalent), run it read-only withagents/openai.yaml'sdefault_prompt, then verdict its findings like your own. Its agreement is not corroboration; both instances read the same diff with the same missing context.- Verdict. Every candidate is confirmed (you can name the triggering input or state and the wrong output; quote the line), plausible (the mechanism is real, the trigger uncertain; say what would confirm it), or refuted (factually wrong or already guarded; quote the line that proves it). Plausible is the default: concurrency races, nil on a rare but reachable path, falsy-zero read as missing, an off-by-one on an unexcluded boundary, a regex that lost its anchor are all realistic. Refute only what the code disproves. Drop duplicates, mis-attributions, and pre-existing issues outside any touched function. File
references/test-gate.mdfindings into the same two tiers, not a separate section. - Report or apply. Report per Output, structural blockers under
Must fix before push, plausible findings marked. In apply mode, continue below.
Apply
Merge findings by root cause. Correctness fixes first, then ownership fixes, then simplification of what remains. Alongside the confirmed findings, sweep the diff on five angles:
| Angle | Question | Evidence for a change |
| Reuse | Does this code need to exist, or does a repository helper, stdlib, platform feature, or installed dependency cover it? | The existing contract and call site, including the boundary cases it handles |
| Quality | Does this add a second owner of state, an unused extension point, or unnecessary compatibility? | Actual consumers and state ownership, not line count |
| Efficiency | Does this add repeated work on a real hot path? | Call frequency, duplicate reads, unbounded retention |
| Ownership | Is a caller patch compensating for a shared mechanism, or placed outside the subsystem that owns this behaviour? | Writers, callers, and adjacent implementations; the deeper fix must be smaller than the special case |
| Test value | Can the test fail for a reason someone would act on? | A named regression, reachable branch, or public contract; literal diff mirrors and mock echoes add none |
Constraints:
- Guard deletion requires system evidence. Before removing a fallback, retry, lock, or validation, identify the writers, reachable states, staleness tolerance, and recovery owner. If its state cannot be ruled out, keep it and report the uncertainty.
- No whole-file rollback of unrelated edits. Scope formatters;
git restore <path>discards the user's earlier edits in the same file. - No abstraction quota. Fewer lines is not a win if it hides different lifecycles or drops behaviour. An existing owning subsystem beats a preferred generic pattern.
- Tests follow risk. Add or update a regression check when the edit changes behaviour that can independently regress; not for copy, a literal config change, or framework behaviour covered elsewhere.
- Confirmed test-gate findings get deleted or rewritten. A new or changed test that fails
references/test-gate.mdat confirmed tier does not stay in the diff; delete it, or rewrite it at the boundary the gate names. A plausible gate finding is reported, not auto-deleted. - Stop on evidence. Once affected checks pass, repeat only for new changes or unresolved concerns. A second pass that keeps adding guards to the same spot means the mechanism, not the guard, is the problem: put the simpler shape to the person who owns the system.
Run the checks the changes affect plus repository-required gates, preserving exit codes and distinguishing baseline failures, then write the summary described under Report or apply.
High-signal criteria
Raise anything that matches one of these and let the verdict step decide; do not pre-filter on confidence, or the filter runs twice and the second pass never sees what the first dropped.
- Compile, type, import, or syntax failure; a call to a symbol the installed dependency version does not export (check
node_modules/<pkg>or the lockfile version's docs). - Caught error discarded: an empty
catch, one that logs then falls into the success path,.catch(() => {})on a promise whose failure changes what the caller should do. - Concrete exploit path with the vulnerability class and affected
file:line. - Missing necessary tests: render-only checks for interactive behaviour, or a bug fix without a failing repro at the seam that failed.
- Scaffolding whose consumer is absent or unreachable, cited with the search that found none, and marked plausible where a consumer could be generated, reached by convention, or live outside this repo. An empty search is not proof: dynamic imports, file-name conventions, generated code, and other repos reach code no static search finds.
- A guard, fallback, retry, or freshness mechanism covering a state the deployment never produces, reported only with the writer set, the consumer's tolerance, or the restart policy named.
- New lint, type-check, or test failures versus baseline.
- Scoped instruction-file or
REVIEW.mdviolation, with the rule quoted. - Retried or at-least-once write with no idempotency key; a database commit plus an external publish with no outbox; a webhook trusted without verifying the signature over the raw bytes; floats for money; timestamps as unstructured strings; a multi-step flow with an irreversible effect and no compensation path; a sensitive mutation with no audit trail.
Structural checks fire in every mode, Standard included: a fix bolted on above the level it belongs at (a special case keyed to one caller inside code that serves all of them; a guard at one call site when the callee could return the right shape for every caller); speculative abstraction without a current requirement; a file pushed past ~1000 lines when the new behaviour has a local boundary (a configured max-lines wins); feature-specific conditionals in shared paths; a bespoke helper duplicating a canonical utility or reimplementing stdlib; a new dependency for what is already installed; logic in the wrong layer. references/structural-quality-rubric.md deepens each for Structural mode.
Do not report style preferences, unrelated pre-existing issues, risks without a repro or exploit path, broad rewrites outside the diff's intent, linter-only noise, or explicitly silenced violations.
Output
Every finding carries file:line, a one-line impact, and a committable fix. A plausible finding adds Plausible: <what would confirm it>. A finding resting on something outside the diff adds Context: naming that artifact. A Fix: phrased as "consider refactoring" cannot be applied; write the change. Length follows the findings: a clean diff gets None. twice and the readiness block.
## Local review
### Must fix before push
- [<severity>] `path/to/file.ts:line` <short factual title>
Why: <concrete impact>
Fix: <committable fix>
### Should fix soon
- [<severity>] `path/to/file.ts:line` <short factual title>
Why: <concrete impact>
Fix: <committable fix>
Plausible: <what would confirm it>
### Ready for handoff
- Reviewed: <range or ref pair>, <N> files
- Baseline: `<command>` -> <last line>
- Mode: <selected mode>
- Reference evidence: `<path opened>` -> "<short excerpt>"
- Missing reference coverage: <failed reads, or None>
- Unstated changes: <hunks no claim covers, or None>
- <readiness verdict>For a PR handoff posted through pr-babysitter or gh, use the same finding shape under ## PR handoff summary and prefix minor items with Nit:. In apply mode, follow the report with what was applied, what was left and why, and the check results.
Gotchas
git diff @{u}fails with "no upstream configured" on a fresh branch, and a diff againstmainon a stale checkout includes everyone else's commits. Diff againstgit merge-base HEAD origin/<default>and state the range.- Line numbers counted off
git diffhunk headers land off by the hunk offset. Take the number fromgrep -nor the file; a reviewer who cannot find the cited line discards the rest of the report. - Skipping the baseline makes pre-existing failures look like regressions, and a full
pnpm testdumps hundreds of lines re-sent every turn. Run the quiet form and quote the last line. - One broken helper reported once per call site reads as three problems and gets three patches while the helper stays broken. Report it once and list the call sites under it.
- An
@pathline inREVIEW.mdis literal text to Claude Code Review, which does not expand imports there. Read the file the same way, or the two reports disagree and the author trusts neither.
Related skills
pr-creator: creates or updates the PR after review; commits and PR creation stay there.pr-babysitter: monitors CI and inbound review comments, and posts the PR handoff format.ui-designAudit mode: UI-level slop, layout, and rendered quality; Deslop mode here covers code-level slop only.test-audit: suite-wide test pruning to a measured coverage target across the whole repo. This skill gates only the tests a diff adds or changes; "prune the suite" or "cut 20% of tests" routes there instead.
Maintenance only: evals/evals.json holds the regression scenarios and routing prompts for anyone changing this skill; it never loads during a user task.
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.

