agentleFS
Sign inStart free
nicodiansknicodiansk/turbocharge/skills/review/SKILL.md

review

Skill2 starsChanged 11 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use before merging to verify completed work meets requirements and quality standards. Dispatches code-reviewer for holistic assessment of the full git diff against the original plan.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 160 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the plan/requirements referenced above

    line 43
  2. Very specific:

    After review, offer: "Ready to ship?" → chains to /turbocharge:ship

    line 56
  3. Distinctive:

    If you catch yourself thinking any of these, STOP — you are about to deliver exactly the kind of review that wastes everyone's time:

    line 60
  4. Distinctive:

    Before reporting your assessment, verify:

    line 73

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 160 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Code Review

Holistic pre-merge review of completed work against the original plan.

Announce: "Using review to assess this work before merge."

The Iron Law

NO MERGE WITHOUT CODE REVIEW

Context

The plan or requirements being reviewed: $ARGUMENTS

Dispatch the code-reviewer agent with this prefix so the subagent sees the navigation index (subagents do not inherit parent history):

@ATLAS.md (navigation index — use Module Map + Key Symbols to locate touched modules)
@CLAUDE.md (conventions, rules)

Omit either reference if the file doesn't exist. Exception: if CLAUDE.md is missing but AGENTS.md exists, use @AGENTS.md in its place. .claude/CLAUDE.md counts as a CLAUDE.md: if the project keeps it there, use @.claude/CLAUDE.md.

Your Review

  1. Get the git diff:
    BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD develop 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null)
git diff $BASE_SHA..HEAD
  2. Read the plan/requirements referenced above
  3. Review for:
    • Plan alignment — Does implementation match what was planned?
    • Code quality — Clean, maintainable, well-tested?
    • Architecture — SOLID, good separation, integrates well?
    • Security — No vulnerabilities, input validated, secrets safe?
  4. Report:
    • Strengths — What was done well
    • Issues — Critical / Important / Minor with file:line references
    • Assessment — Ready to merge? Yes / No / With fixes

After review, offer: "Ready to ship?" → chains to /turbocharge:ship

Red Flags — Rationalizations That Mean You're Doing a Shallow Review

If you catch yourself thinking any of these, STOP — you are about to deliver exactly the kind of review that wastes everyone's time:

ThoughtWhy It's Wrong
"The code looks reasonable, I'll summarize the changes"Summarizing is not reviewing. Read every changed line.
"I'll focus on the important files and skim the rest"The bug is always in the file you skimmed
"The tests pass, so the logic must be correct"Tests can pass while testing the wrong thing
"This is a minor change, quick review is fine"Minor changes to core logic cause major production incidents
"I've reviewed similar code before, I know the patterns"This review is about THIS diff, not past patterns
"Let me check the main concerns and wrap up"Checking "main concerns" is a euphemism for a partial review

Review Completeness Checklist

Before reporting your assessment, verify:

  • Read EVERY file in the diff (state count: "Reviewed X of Y changed files")
  • Compared implementation against EVERY requirement in the plan
  • Checked for issues that tests DON'T catch (naming, architecture, security)
  • Verified no orphaned code, dead imports, or unfinished TODOs

Download now (ZIP)

  • Other versions191 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 191

    1. garrytan/gstack★ 138ksame name
    2. ansible/ansible★ 71ksame name
    3. docling-project/docling★ 70ksame name
    4. traefik/traefik★ 65ksame name
    5. ClickHouse/ClickHouse★ 51ksame name
    6. temporalio/temporal★ 24ksame name
    7. tisfeng/Easydict★ 15ksame name
    8. juicedata/juicefs★ 15ksame name
    9. elie222/inbox-zero★ 13ksame name
    10. gitkraken/vscode-gitlens★ 9.9ksame name

    181 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 daily-arxiv, exp-eval 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.
    • LambenthanSkill

      daily-arxiv

      每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文，过滤相关性，auto-ingest 高优先级论文，检测 SOTA 更新

      Also in 5 projects that use this

    • LambenthanSkill

      exp-eval

      实验判决门：Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges

      Also in 5 projects that use this

    • SethGammonSkill

      ascii-diagram

      Generate perfectly aligned ASCII diagrams — architecture, flow, sequence, box-and-arrow. Uses a programmatic character-grid approach so alignment is guaranteed by math, not token prediction. Includes post-render verification.

      Also in 4 projects that use this

    • DAIR-AutoResearchSkill

      exp-pilot-eval

      Pilot result evaluation — read pilot results, apply success criteria, update idea page (pilot_result, failure_reason if failed), generate PILOT_VERDICT_REPORT. Called by /ideate Phase 5 after /exp-pilot-run.

      Also in 4 projects that use this

    • DAIR-AutoResearchSkill

      exp-pilot-run

      Pilot experiment execution — read Pilot Spec YAML, write pilot code, run experiment(Confirm with the user before operation and require the applicant to conduct manual inspection), return results. Called by /ideate Phase 5. Does NOT modify wiki pages or judge pass/fail.

      Also in 4 projects that use this

    • +5 more from Lambenthan
    • +1 more from DAIR-AutoResearch
  • 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