zephyr-patch-review
Skill5 starsChanged 44 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when reviewing Zephyr diffs or patch stacks for correctness, integration, coverage, reviewer boundaries, or merge readiness.
In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- de-ai-writingSkill
- docs-translate-zhSkill
- interactive-gdb-debuggingSkill
- openeuler-researchSkill
- zephyr-debugSkill
- zephyr-exploreSkill
- zephyr-safety-evidenceSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
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 26
Put every generated intermediate debugging document, debug script, and scaffolding or harness script, including Bash and Python scripts, …
- Distinctive: line 48
Check the affected Kconfig, CMake, devicetree, architecture, board, SoC, toolchain, documentation, and API-lifecycle boundaries.
- Distinctive: line 50
Verify that targeted tests and logs support each behavior claim and state the remaining coverage gaps.
- Distinctive: line 52
Check patch order, reviewer-sized separation, bisectability, and applicable SPDX and license conventions for new files.
- Very specific: line 57
Use MAINTAINERS.yml for affected areas, reviewers, labels, and tests.
- Distinctive: line 64
Treat unavailable history as a gap, not evidence of a defect.
- Distinctive: line 71
If there are no findings, say so and list residual verification gaps.
≈ “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
Zephyr Patch Review
Audit workflow
For every non-trivial task that writes to the workspace, choose a stable task slug and keep agent-only records under:
.zephyr-skills/<agent-task>/
├── audit.md # Baseline, decisions, evidence, verification, and gaps
├── commands.md # Redacted commands, working directories, and results
├── scripts/ # Intermediate debug documents, scripts, and harnesses
├── output/ # Non-Zephyr dependencies and temporary binaries
└── logs/ # Decisive build, test, runtime, or diagnostic logsPut every generated intermediate debugging document, debug script, and
scaffolding or harness script, including Bash and Python scripts, under
scripts/, never in a build directory. Put non-Zephyr third-party source or
libraries acquired solely for the agent's task, and temporary binaries produced
by agent-only probes or tools, under output/. Do not copy normal Zephyr build
artifacts there. Keep other agent plans and temporary evidence in the same task
directory. In a Git worktree, add
/.zephyr-skills/ to the repository-local exclude file returned by
git rev-parse --git-path info/exclude before writing audit artifacts. Preserve
existing entries, avoid duplicates, and verify before handoff that
git status --short contains no .zephyr-skills/ paths. Keep Zephyr-native
build trees, binaries, and test outputs separate: honor a user-specified path,
otherwise use defaults such as configured build.dir-fmt, build/, or
twister-out/. Record the effective paths, do not stage .zephyr-skills/
unless requested, and report the task directory and unresolved gaps at handoff.
Review
- Bound the review to an explicit base and intended behavior; separate unrelated changes before judging the patch.
- Inspect correctness and semantic integration, including ownership, lifetime, locking, error paths, generated artifacts, and 32/64-bit assumptions.
- Check the affected Kconfig, CMake, devicetree, architecture, board, SoC, toolchain, documentation, and API-lifecycle boundaries.
- Verify that targeted tests and logs support each behavior claim and state the remaining coverage gaps.
- Check patch order, reviewer-sized separation, bisectability, and applicable SPDX and license conventions for new files.
Ownership and precedent
- Use
MAINTAINERS.ymlfor affected areas, reviewers, labels, and tests;CODEOWNERSis not authoritative in this tree. - Consult local history for unfamiliar APIs, regressions, or subsystem boundary
changes. Prefer
git log --follow,git log -S,git blame, andgit show. - Query the current Gerrit change and patch-set state, or an upstream pull request when explicitly in scope, only for merge readiness. Read current submit, approval, and blocker policy instead of hard-coding it.
- Treat unavailable history as a gap, not evidence of a defect.
Findings
- Report only actionable, source-backed findings, with file and line references when available.
- Explain the failure mode, impact, and any missing or inadequate verification.
- If there are no findings, say so and list residual verification gaps.
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.

