incremental-review
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Re-review code efficiently after iterative changes by capturing a baseline of the previous review state and analysing only what changed — the diff, its dependency neighbourhood, and impacted test results — instead of re-reading the entire change surface. Token-efficient re-analysis that scales with iteration frequency. Use during active development when a region receives multiple review rounds. Use when the reviewer already reviewed a previous version of the same change and needs to confirm fixes without re-examining everything. Use when the…
In this repository117 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- advanced-orchestrationSkill
- architect-agentSkill
- implementer-agentSkill
- quality-councilSkill
- reviewer-agentSkill
- tester-agentSkill
- writer-critic-pairSkill
- authoring-skillsSkill
- api-endpoint-qualitySkill
- async-job-qualitySkill
- auth-qualitySkill
- db-migration-qualitySkill
- frontend-state-qualitySkill
- acceptance-criteriaSkill
- adaptive-flowSkill
- adaptive-prompt-selectionSkill
- adversarial-code-reviewSkill
- architecture-decision-recordsSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- brownfield-spec-enhancementSkill
- bug-fix-lifecycleSkill
- checkpoint-validationSkill
- cicd-integrationSkill
- clarify-before-codeSkill
- claude-code-hooks-packSkill
- code-context-packSkill
- code-intelligence-reviewSkill
- context-policySkill
- context-rich-implementationSkill
- crash-proof-planningSkill
- critique-pass-protocolSkill
- dependency-aware-task-orderingSkill
- deprecation-migrationSkill
- disciplined-diagnosisSkill
- docs-authorSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- external-skillSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- git-guardrailsSkill
- goal-driven-executionSkill
- grill-user-before-buildingSkill
- guard-bypass-protocolSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- issue-slicingSkill
- lessons-learned-dbSkill
- loop-engineeringSkill
- model-aware-configSkill
- model-weakness-memorySkill
- multi-repo-learningSkill
- orchestration-workflowsSkill
- plan-driven-executionSkill
- plan-from-specSkill
- prd-from-contextSkill
- project-constitutionSkill
- prompt-architectureSkill
- prototype-before-commitmentSkill
- quality-engineSkill
- quality-execution-contractSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 23
Do not use for first-time reviews (no baseline exists) or when the diff is entirely new code with no prior review history.
- Very specific: line 38
If this is the first review of this region, create a baseline by running a full review (use requesting-code-review and optionally …
- Distinctive: line 45
If a baseline exists, load it.
≈ “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
Skill: Incremental Review
Purpose
Re-review code efficiently after iterative changes by capturing a baseline of the previous review state and analysing only what changed — the diff, its dependency neighbourhood, and impacted test results — instead of re-reading the entire change surface. Token-efficient re-analysis that scales with iteration frequency.
When to use
Use during active development when a region receives multiple review rounds. Use when the reviewer already reviewed a previous version of the same change and needs to confirm fixes without re-examining everything. Use when the change is part of a larger feature that goes through several review cycles.
Do not use for first-time reviews (no baseline exists) or when the diff is entirely new code with no prior review history.
Inputs
- Previous review output (the baseline).
- Previous intelligence map (if code-intelligence-review was used).
- Current diff.
- Diff since last baseline.
- Fixed point (branch, commit, or tag).
- Validation results (before and after changes).
Workflow
Step 1: Capture or load the baseline
If this is the first review of this region, create a baseline by running a full review (use requesting-code-review and optionally code-intelligence-review). The baseline records:
- The set of files reviewed.
- The diff that was reviewed.
- The review findings (blockers, suggestions, questions, deferred items).
- The intelligence map (if generated).
If a baseline exists, load it. Confirm the baseline diff can be compared to the current diff.
Step 2: Diff analysis — what changed since baseline
Compute the difference between the current state and the baseline:
- Added files — files in the current diff that were not in the baseline.
- Removed files — files in the baseline that are no longer part of the change.
- Modified files — files that changed since baseline. For each, identify the specific functions, blocks, or lines that changed.
- Unchanged files — files carried over from the baseline with no modifications.
For each category, note whether the unchanged files are still relevant to the current scope.
Step 3: Dependency-impact analysis
For each changed function or block (from Step 2), consult the baseline intelligence map or build a fresh dependency slice:
- Direct impact — does this change affect a caller or callee that was already reviewed? Re-check those relationships.
- New dependency — does the change introduce a new import, call, or data flow? Evaluate the new dependency.
- Removed dependency — does the change remove an import, call, or data flow? Confirm the removal is safe and intentional.
- Broadcast impact — does the change alter a shared interface, type, or module export? Check all known callers (from the map).
Step 4: Regression checklist
Compile a targeted regression checklist from the baseline intelligence map and the current impact analysis:
- Previously reviewed code paths that the current change touches — re-verify correctness.
- Previously identified blockers or suggestions — confirm they were addressed.
- Previously suggested tests — confirm they were added or document the decision not to add.
- Tests that exercise the changed functions — re-run and confirm they pass.
- Tests that exercise dependent functions (callers/callees) — re-run to catch regressions.
- Integration tests covering the changed dependency chains — confirm they still pass.
- Any new error paths introduced — verify they are tested.
- Any behavioural changes to shared interfaces — confirm backwards compatibility or document the break.
Step 5: Incremental findings
Produce the incremental review output:
- Resolved items — baseline findings that are now addressed. Mark them closed.
- New findings — issues introduced by the current round of changes.
- Persistent items — baseline findings that remain unresolved. Renew the recommendation or downgrade if the risk is accepted.
- Regression risks — specific tests or paths at risk from the changes, based on dependency impact.
Step 6: Update the baseline
Save the current state as the new baseline for the next incremental review. Include:
- The current diff and file list.
- The updated intelligence map (with dependency-impact annotations from Step 3).
- The resolved and persistent findings.
- The regression checklist status.
Outputs
- Incremental review report with resolved, new, and persistent findings.
- Updated regression checklist.
- Updated baseline for the next incremental cycle.
Failure modes
- Running incremental review without a valid baseline — produces false negatives because the reviewer assumes unchanged code is still correct.
- Skipping dependency-impact analysis — misses regressions in callers or dependants that do not appear in the diff.
- Accumulating stale baseline state — if the change direction shifts significantly, discard the baseline and start a fresh full review.
- Treating resolved items as fully closed without re-running tests — a fix may introduce its own regressions.
Verification checklist
- Baseline exists and is loaded.
- Diff since baseline is computed (added, removed, modified, unchanged files).
- Dependency-impact analysis covers direct, new, removed, and broadcast impacts.
- Regression checklist is compiled from baseline map and current impacts.
- Incremental findings separate resolved, new, and persistent items.
- Baseline is updated for next cycle.
- Validation was re-run on the full change, not just the incremental diff.
Ghi chú tiếng Việt
Incremental Review giúp review lại code hiệu quả sau nhiều vòng lặp: chụp baseline, phân tích diff từ baseline, đánh giá tác động phụ thuộc (dependency-impact), lập checklist hồi quy, và tạo báo cáo gồm mục đã giải quyết/mới/còn tồn đọng. Không chạy incremental nếu chưa có baseline. Cảm hứng: tirth8205/code-review-graph (MIT) — ý tưởng incremental re-analysis; diễn đạt nguyên gốc, không sao chép.
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.

