agentleFS
Sign inStart free
n24q02mn24q02m/better-code-review-graph/.agents/skills/review-delta/SKILL.md

review-delta

Skill76 starsChanged 7 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Review only changes since last commit using impact analysis. Token-efficient delta review with automatic blast-radius detection.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Token optimization: Before starting, call help(topic="graph") for the full actions reference.

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    Check if impacted callers/dependents need updates

    line 30
  3. Very specific:

    Verify test coverage using query(action="query", pattern="tests_for", target=<function_name>)

    line 31
  4. Distinctive:

    Only sends changed + impacted code to the model (5-10x fewer tokens)

    line 43

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

Review Delta

Perform a focused, token-efficient code review of only the changed code and its blast radius.

Token optimization: Before starting, call help(topic="graph") for the full actions reference. Use ONLY changed nodes + 2-hop neighbors in context.

Steps

  1. Ensure the graph is current by calling graph(action="update").
  2. Get review context by calling review(). This returns:
    • Changed files (auto-detected from git diff)
    • Impacted nodes and files (blast radius)
    • Source code snippets for changed areas
    • Review guidance (test coverage gaps, wide impact warnings, inheritance concerns)
  3. Analyze the blast radius by reviewing the impacted_nodes and impacted_files in the context. Focus on:
    • Functions whose callers changed (may need signature/behavior verification)
    • Classes with inheritance changes (Liskov substitution concerns)
    • Files with many dependents (high-risk changes)
  4. Perform the review using the context. For each changed file:
    • Review the source snippet for correctness, style, and potential bugs
    • Check if impacted callers/dependents need updates
    • Verify test coverage using query(action="query", pattern="tests_for", target=<function_name>)
    • Flag any untested changed functions
  5. Report findings in a structured format:
    • Summary: One-line overview of the changes
    • Risk level: Low / Medium / High (based on blast radius)
    • Issues found: Bugs, style issues, missing tests
    • Blast radius: List of impacted files/functions
    • Recommendations: Actionable suggestions

Advantages Over Full-Repo Review

  • Only sends changed + impacted code to the model (5-10x fewer tokens)
  • Automatically identifies blast radius without manual file searching
  • Provides structural context (who calls what, inheritance chains)
  • Flags untested functions automatically

Download now (ZIP)

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 1

    1. n24q02m/crg★ 76100% same

    Edited · 1

    1. tirth8205/code-review-graph★ 32k16% same

    Wrote their own version · 0

    None found.

    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 repository10 other files it gives its agents.

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.

Check your setup, free