requesting-review
Skill2 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Dispatch code review subagent on completed work.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ali-sheiba/development-workflowtheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- MorganOnGitHub/tackletheir own version, first seen Sep 27, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- ali-sheiba/development-workflow★ 1same name
- MorganOnGitHub/tackle★ 0same 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 repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- auditingSkill
- bootstrappingSkill
- debuggingSkill
- executingSkill
- finalizingSkill
- guardingSkill
- handling-reviewSkill
- ideatingSkill
- isolatingSkill
- orchestratingSkill
- parallelizingSkill
- planningSkill
- precisionSkill
- runbookSkill
- scaffoldingSkill
- skill-craftingSkill
- tddSkill
- verifyingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Required: after each orchestrated task, after completing a feature, before merging to main.
- Distinctive: line 14
Worthwhile: before refactoring (baseline audit), after resolving a tricky defect, when you want a second perspective.
- Distinctive: line 36
If the reviewer is wrong, push back with technical reasoning — reference tests or code that proves correctness.
≈ “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
Requesting Review
Dispatch an arsyn:code-reviewer subagent to catch defects before they compound. The reviewer receives crafted context — never your session history — keeping it focused on the work product.
When to Dispatch
Required: after each orchestrated task, after completing a feature, before merging to main.
Worthwhile: before refactoring (baseline audit), after resolving a tricky defect, when you want a second perspective.
Procedure
1. Determine diff range:
BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base origin/main HEAD)
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)2. Dispatch subagent using Task tool with arsyn:code-reviewer type. Fill the template at references/code-reviewer.md.
Placeholders: {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}, {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}, {BASE_SHA}, {HEAD_SHA}, {DESCRIPTION}.
3. Triage response:
| Severity | Action |
| Critical | Fix immediately — blocks all progress |
| Important | Fix before moving to next task |
| Minor | Log for later or fix opportunistically |
If the reviewer is wrong, push back with technical reasoning — reference tests or code that proves correctness.
Scenario: Post-Task Review in a Multi-Task Plan
[Finished Task 3: pagination for search results]
BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline --grep="Task 2" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
[Dispatch arsyn:code-reviewer]
WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Cursor-based pagination for /search endpoint
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 3 from docs/plans/search-overhaul.md
BASE_SHA: b4e22f1
HEAD_SHA: 9a3c8d0
DESCRIPTION: Added cursor encoding, page-size limits, next/prev links
[Reviewer returns]
Critical: Off-by-one in cursor decode skips first result
Minor: Magic number 50 for default page size
→ Fix cursor bug, extract PAGE_SIZE_DEFAULT constant, proceed to Task 4.Workflow Integration
- Subagent-driven development: review after each task.
- Plan execution: review after each batch (~3 tasks).
- Standalone work: review before merge or when stuck.
Gotchas
- Skipping review on "trivial" changes — trivial changes hide subtle regressions.
- Using session HEAD without verifying — stale SHAs produce empty diffs. Always re-derive.
- Ignoring Important-severity items to stay on schedule — they compound into Critical by the next task.
- Passing session history instead of the template — reviewer loses focus, burns context on irrelevant detail.
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.