review-delta
Skill76 starsChanged 8 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Review uncommitted changes using impact analysis. Quick local delta review with blast-radius detection.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- tirth8205/code-review-graphtheir own version, first seen Nov 11, 2026
- n24q02m/better-code-review-graphword for word, first seen Mar 22, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- n24q02m/better-code-review-graph★ 76100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- tirth8205/code-review-graph★ 33ksame 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 repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- build-graphSkill
- review-deltaSkill
- review-prSkill
- impact-auditSkill
- onboard-repoSkill
- refactor-checkSkill
- review-prSkill
- security-sweepSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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
- Very specific: line 11
Command surface: run the local CLI through the coding harness shell.
- Distinctive: line 33
Check if impacted callers/dependents need updates
- Very specific: line 34
Verify test coverage with crg query query --pattern tests_for --target "<function>" --repo-root "<path>"
- Distinctive: line 62
High: if any of: >5 impacted files, public API signature change, public API behavior change, breaking change in exported symbols
- Distinctive: line 63
Low: if all of: only test files changed, only documentation/comments changed, only config/CI files changed
- Distinctive: line 68
Only sends changed + impacted code to the model (5-10x fewer tokens)
≈ “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
Review Delta
Perform a focused, token-efficient code review of uncommitted changes and their blast radius. Use this for quick local reviews BEFORE committing. For full branch/PR reviews, use review-pr instead.
Command surface: run the local CLI through the coding harness shell. Examples
use the installed crg command; from a source checkout,
prefix it with uv run. No MCP mapping is required. Use
crg review --help for the command reference.
Steps
- Ensure the graph is current with
crg graph build --base HEAD --repo-root "<path>". - Get review context with
crg review context --base HEAD --repo-root "<path>". 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)
- Analyze the blast radius by reviewing the
impacted_nodesandimpacted_filesin the JSON result. 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)
- 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 with
crg query query --pattern tests_for --target "<function>" --repo-root "<path>" - Flag any untested changed functions
Report findings in a structured format:
## Delta Review ### Summary <One-line overview of the changes> ### Risk Level - **Low**: Test-only changes, documentation, config files - **Medium**: Implementation changes with <5 impacted files, no public API changes - **High**: >5 impacted files OR public API signature/behavior change ### Issues Found - <Bugs, style issues, missing tests> ### Blast Radius - <List of impacted files/functions> ### Recommendations 1. <Actionable suggestion>
Risk Level Escalation Rules
- High if any of: >5 impacted files, public API signature change, public API behavior change, breaking change in exported symbols
- Low if all of: only test files changed, only documentation/comments changed, only config/CI files changed
- Medium: everything else
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
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.

