reviewer-tooling
Skill0 starsChanged 57 days agoMITView on GitHub
Review project tooling: GitHub Actions workflows, package.json and pnpm workspace files, .gitignore, .gitattributes, agent and editor config (.claude, launch.json), Makefiles and Dockerfiles. Use when reviewing changes to these files, or when the user types /reviewer-tooling. Catches script injection and leaked secrets in CI, over-broad permissions and tokens, deploys that run on pull requests, unpinned or deprecated actions and runtimes, lockfile drift, ignored files that must be committed (or committed files that must be ignored), CRLF and LFS mistakes, and machine-specific config. Part of the reviewer bundle.
- Reads credentials
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-scaffoldingSkill
- comment-hygieneSkill
- microfrontendsSkill
- reviewer-cloudflareSkill
- reviewer-dataSkill
- reviewer-docsSkill
- reviewer-godotSkill
- reviewer-pythonSkill
- reviewer-readabilitySkill
- reviewer-shellSkill
- reviewer-unitySkill
- reviewer-webSkill
- reviewerSkill
- startup-scriptSkill
- typed-blocksSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are 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.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 13
Read each workflow end to end: triggers, permissions, jobs, the secrets used, and what is deployed where.
- Very specific: line 33
No deprecated runtimes or actions (warnings in recent runs).
- Distinctive: line 50
No machine-specific absolute paths or usernames in shared files.
- Distinctive: line 52
No secrets, and no permission rules wider than the project needs.
- Very specific: line 62
Every workflow step has a name: that says what it does.
- Very specific: line 72
Use the reviewer format: [severity] path:line — problem, then failure: (the concrete input, state or platform → wrong result) and fix: (the …
≈ “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
Tooling reviewer
Scope: .github/workflows/*, package.json, pnpm-workspace.yaml, .npmrc, .gitignore, .gitattributes, .claude/**, .vscode/**, Makefile, Dockerfile. Skip lockfiles, except to check that they moved with package.json.
Before reviewing
- Read each workflow end to end: triggers, permissions, jobs, the secrets used, and what is deployed where.
- Validate YAML (
actionlintif installed, otherwise a YAML parser). Rungit check-ignore -v <path>on files whose ignore status matters.
Checklist
CI security
${{ github.event.* }}values (PR titles, branch names, issue bodies) interpolated intorun:let anyone run code. Pass them throughenv:and quote them.pull_request_targetandworkflow_runtogether with a checkout of PR code give that code your secrets.permissions:is least privilege (contents: readby default). Grant writes per job.- Secrets are exposed only to the steps that need them, never echoed, and unavailable to fork PRs.
- Tokens are scoped to what the job does. Cloudflare: an API token from a template with only the needed permissions, never the Global API Key.
- Third-party actions are pinned to a release or commit SHA, never a branch.
CI behaviour
- Deploys run only on push to the release branch (or a manual trigger), never on pull requests.
- A
concurrencygroup stops two deploys overlapping. - Tests run before deploy, and a failing step fails the job. No
|| trueorcontinue-on-erroron checks. - Tool versions are pinned (Node, Python, Godot or Unity, pnpm). Caches are keyed on those versions and the lockfile hash.
- No deprecated runtimes or actions (warnings in recent runs). Setup steps come before the actions that need them (pnpm before an action that runs
pnpm). - Checkout fetches LFS when the build needs LFS files.
Packages
packageManagermatches the lockfile's tool and version. The lockfile changes whenever dependencies change.- Runtime dependencies and devDependencies are in the right section. Apps set
"private": true. scriptswork on every OS the team and CI use.
Git config
.gitignorecovers build output, dependency folders, engine caches (.godot/,Library/), and secrets (.env*,.dev.vars, keystores,credentials*).- It must not ignore files that have to be committed (Godot
.uid/.import, Unity.meta). Negation patterns are needed when a parent folder is ignored. .gitattributes:eol=lffor scripts (CRLF breaks bash). Binaries are marked binary. LFS patterns match where the large files actually live.
Agent and editor config
- No machine-specific absolute paths or usernames in shared files.
- Commands named in config (
launch.json, hooks) exist and run. - No secrets, and no permission rules wider than the project needs.
Containers and Make
- Base images pinned. No secrets in layers. Make targets are
.PHONYwhere needed, and fail on error.
Readability
Apply reviewer-readability to the same files (names, structure, dead code, and whether comments are true, needed and well-shaped), plus:
- Every workflow step has a
name:that says what it does. A non-obvious condition, pin or cache key has a one-line#comment explaining why. - Scripts in
package.jsonare named by what they do; long inline shell moves into a script file.
Not findings
- Formatting of YAML or JSON.
- Pinning first-party
actions/*to a major version, when the project does so consistently.
Report
Use the reviewer format: [severity] path:line — problem, then failure: (the concrete input, state or platform → wrong result) and fix: (the smallest change). Most severe first. Prove each finding before reporting it, and say No findings with what you checked when there are none.
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.

