agentleFS
processmissionprocessmission/agent-skills/skills/zephyr/zephyr-patch-review/SKILL.md

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.

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
  1. Very specific:

    Put every generated intermediate debugging document, debug script, and scaffolding or harness script, including Bash and Python scripts, …

    line 26
  2. Distinctive:

    Check the affected Kconfig, CMake, devicetree, architecture, board, SoC, toolchain, documentation, and API-lifecycle boundaries.

    line 48
  3. Distinctive:

    Verify that targeted tests and logs support each behavior claim and state the remaining coverage gaps.

    line 50
  4. Distinctive:

    Check patch order, reviewer-sized separation, bisectability, and applicable SPDX and license conventions for new files.

    line 52
  5. Very specific:

    Use MAINTAINERS.yml for affected areas, reviewers, labels, and tests.

    line 57
  6. Distinctive:

    Treat unavailable history as a gap, not evidence of a defect.

    line 64
  7. Distinctive:

    If there are no findings, say so and list residual verification gaps.

    line 71

≈ “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.

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

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 logs

Put 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

  1. Bound the review to an explicit base and intended behavior; separate unrelated changes before judging the patch.
  2. Inspect correctness and semantic integration, including ownership, lifetime, locking, error paths, generated artifacts, and 32/64-bit assumptions.
  3. Check the affected Kconfig, CMake, devicetree, architecture, board, SoC, toolchain, documentation, and API-lifecycle boundaries.
  4. Verify that targeted tests and logs support each behavior claim and state the remaining coverage gaps.
  5. Check patch order, reviewer-sized separation, bisectability, and applicable SPDX and license conventions for new files.

Ownership and precedent

  • Use MAINTAINERS.yml for affected areas, reviewers, labels, and tests; CODEOWNERS is 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, and git 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.

Download now (ZIP)

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.