Review Changes
Skill10 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Perform a structured code review using change detection and impact
3 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- theexperiencecompany/gaiaedited, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- nilsteampassnet/TeamPassword for word, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- microsoft/Microsoft365DSCedited, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- nilsteampassnet/TeamPass★ 1.9k100% same
Edited · 2
- microsoft/Microsoft365DSC★ 2.5k100% same
- theexperiencecompany/gaia★ 325100% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- Debug IssueSkill
- Explore CodebaseSkill
- Refactor SafelySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 12
Run detect_changes to get risk-scored change analysis.
- Very specific: line 13
Run get_affected_flows to find impacted execution paths.
- Very specific: line 15
Run get_impact_radius to understand the blast radius.
- Very specific: line 27
ALWAYS start with get_minimal_context(task="<your task>") before any other graph tool.
- Very specific: line 28
Use detail_level="minimal" on all calls.
≈ “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
Review Changes
Perform a thorough, risk-aware code review using the knowledge graph.
Steps
- Run
detect_changesto get risk-scored change analysis. - Run
get_affected_flowsto find impacted execution paths. - For each high-risk function, run
query_graphwith pattern="tests_for" to check test coverage. - Run
get_impact_radiusto understand the blast radius. - For any untested changes, suggest specific test cases.
Output Format
Provide findings grouped by risk level (high/medium/low) with:
- What changed and why it matters
- Test coverage status
- Suggested improvements
- Overall merge recommendation
Token Efficiency Rules
- ALWAYS start with
get_minimal_context(task="<your task>")before any other graph tool. - Use
detail_level="minimal"on all calls. Only escalate to "standard" when minimal is insufficient. - Target: complete any review/debug/refactor task in ≤5 tool calls and ≤800 total output tokens.
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.

