agentleFS
Sign inStart free
roronoazoroshao369roronoazoroshao369/vibe-coding-os/skills/core/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

requesting-code-review

Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Package a change for useful review by making scope, intent, diff, risks, and verification evidence easy to inspect. Use after a patch is ready for another human or agent pass, before merge readiness, or when a risky decision needs independent scrutiny. Spec or task, implementation plan, current diff, changed files, validation results, known risks, and questions for the reviewer. A review request containing scope, summary, changed files, risks, verification evidence, and specific questions. When the change is non-trivial (multiple files,…

187 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions and 10 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.
  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-code-review

    中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时，用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-commit-conventions

    中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • obraSkill

    diagnosing-superpowers

    Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.

    Also in 20 projects that use this

  • math-incSkill

    heartmula

    Set up and run HeartMuLa, the open-source music generation model family (Suno-like). Generates full songs from lyrics + tags with multilingual support.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • Tommy-ywSkill

    webhook-subscriptions

    Create and manage webhook subscriptions for event-driven agent activation, or for direct push notifications (zero LLM cost). Use when the user wants external services to trigger agent runs OR push notifications to chats.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • john-data-chenSkill

    touchdesigner-mcp

    Control a running TouchDesigner instance via twozero MCP — create operators, set parameters, wire connections, execute Python, build real-time visuals. 36 native tools.

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • +3 more from Leodorareluctant259

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 174 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use after a patch is ready for another human or agent pass, before merge readiness, or when a risky decision needs independent scrutiny.

    line 21
  2. Distinctive:

    Ask focused review questions for risky areas.

    line 33
  3. Distinctive:

    Stop claiming readiness if validation or attribution obligations are unresolved.

    line 34

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 174 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

Skill: Requesting Code Review

Purpose

Package a change for useful review by making scope, intent, diff, risks, and verification evidence easy to inspect.

When to use

Use after a patch is ready for another human or agent pass, before merge readiness, or when a risky decision needs independent scrutiny.

Inputs

Spec or task, implementation plan, current diff, changed files, validation results, known risks, and questions for the reviewer.

Workflow

  1. Review your own diff first and remove unrelated changes.
  2. Summarize intent, user-visible behavior, and non-goals.
  3. List changed files by purpose instead of dumping the diff.
  4. Provide exact tests/checks run and any failures or limitations.
  5. Ask focused review questions for risky areas.
  6. Stop claiming readiness if validation or attribution obligations are unresolved.

Outputs

A review request containing scope, summary, changed files, risks, verification evidence, and specific questions.

Optional: intelligence-map generation

When the change is non-trivial (multiple files, cross-module, shared interface changes), consider including a request for an intelligence map in the review request. Add a note that you would like the reviewer to run code-intelligence-review or vibe-review-intelligence before analysis. This gives the reviewer a structural understanding of the change's reach — call graph, dependency chains, data flow, and test gaps — and surfaces ripple effects that flat line-by-line review may miss.

Optional: incremental mode

If this change has been reviewed before in an earlier iteration, indicate that the reviewer may use incremental review mode. Include the previous review output and baseline diff so the reviewer can compute only what changed since the last round. This avoids re-reading the full change surface and focuses the review on the new delta. Use templates/incremental-review-template.md for the incremental findings.

Failure modes

  • Sending a review request without validation status.
  • Hiding known risks or failed checks.
  • Asking for generic review when a focused question is needed.
  • Including noisy or unrelated diff.
  • Requesting an intelligence map for a trivial change where the overhead of map construction outweighs insight.

Verification checklist

  • Diff was self-reviewed first.
  • Review request names scope and non-goals.
  • Validation evidence is explicit.
  • Open questions are actionable.

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.

Check your setup, free