review
Skill14 starsChanged 37 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Verify implemented work against its spec with real evidence before any "done" claim. Checks the spec's success criteria, runs the surface test command, and runs validate-hub.mjs as a mandatory coherence gate.
192 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- microsoft/veronatheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- microsoft/FluidFrameworktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- charliee1w/consolidation-memorytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- jisuzzzz/haechitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- apokamo/kajitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- dirien/yet-another-agent-harnesstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use close-spec, design-with-images 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.
dzhngSkillclose-spec
When a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes) and [review](../review/SKILL.md) (run before closing).
Also in 5 projects that use this
dzhngSkilldesign-with-images
Explore UI and visual design with image generation, then iterate the real implementation against the user-selected concept. Use when brainstorming visual directions, offering mockup variants, or implementing an approved generated design; do not stop at the mockups or the first code approximation.
Also in 5 projects that use this
LambenthanSkilldaily-arxiv
每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文,过滤相关性,auto-ingest 高优先级论文,检测 SOTA 更新
Also in 5 projects that use this
LambenthanSkillexp-eval
实验判决门:Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges
Also in 5 projects that use this
- +3 more from dzhng
- +5 more from Lambenthan
Other versions192 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 192
- garrytan/gstack★ 141ksame name
- ansible/ansible★ 71ksame name
- docling-project/docling★ 70ksame name
- traefik/traefik★ 65ksame name
- ClickHouse/ClickHouse★ 51ksame name
- temporalio/temporal★ 24ksame name
- tisfeng/Easydict★ 15ksame name
- juicedata/juicefs★ 15ksame name
- elie222/inbox-zero★ 13ksame name
- gitkraken/vscode-gitlens★ 10ksame name
182 more not listed
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 repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- templates/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- steepy-apex-bootstrapSkill
- steepy-apex-bootstrapSkill
- brainstormSkill
- checkSkill
- discoverySkill
- implementSkill
- inceptionSkill
- initSkill
- loop-engineerSkill
- new-surfaceSkill
- planSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 157 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 9
Verify completed work with evidence.
- Very specific: line 42
Only this SKILL.md is meant to stay in context for the whole run.
- Very specific: line 49
Always set model: explicitly when dispatching a subagent.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 157 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.
Files
review
Verify completed work with evidence. Never assert "done" without command output to back it.
Engine root: this skill's base directory is
<engine-root>/skills/review/; engine scripts live two levels up, at<engine-root>/scripts/. Resolve them relative to the base directory your harness reports for this skill.
Checklist
- In autopilot, read the supplied phase manifest first; then read the gear and scale ceremony to it (Step 0)
- Manifest-backed autopilot: load criteria-only source + task index + diff + standards, then match and record every relevant modular leaf; regular manual review: load accepted criteria + task-result index + branch diff + stable routed inputs; Gear 4: load the exact goal contract + loop ledger instead (Step 1)
- Run
capture-review-evidence.mjsonce: keep verbatim command output in the current run'sevidence-report.md, consume only its compact JSON receipt, and judge every criterion in session (Step 2) - For Gear 4, validate goal/ledger provenance and the ledger event commitment, then prove the exact claimed terminal outcome without confusing negative completion with goal success (Steps 1–2)
- Sweep unpromoted insights from the active inventory: manifest criteria + task-result index in autopilot; manual insight sweep uses only accepted criteria + task-result index compact status and
signals(Step 2) - Confirm the receipt contains a green
validate-hubcommand result (Step 3) - Report:
validate-hubgreen AND every regular criterion or Gear-4 terminal claim verified from real command output - Resolve the version bump (or apply
no-release) and offer a PR tomainonly for regular review or Gear-4GOAL_REACHED; suppress release/PR for negative terminal outcomes (Step 5)
Procedure
The steps live in co-located files, each read in full at the point named here:
| Steps | File | Read it |
| Handoff envelope, resume pairs, publication order | manual-handoff.md | before accepting any input, and again before Step 4 publishes |
| 0–1: read the gear, load bounded review inputs and the hub | entry.md | at the start of every run, fresh or resumed |
| 2–3: verify against the criteria source, discovery signals, coherence gate | verify.md | before capturing evidence |
| 4–5: report, version bump, offer a pull request | finish.md | after the coherence gate |
Only this SKILL.md is meant to stay in context for the whole run; a context compaction can drop the step files you read earlier. Before you act on a step, its file must be fully in view. If it is not — after a compaction, on resume, or when only a summary of it remains — re-read it from this skill's base directory first. Never act on a summary of a step file.
Model Selection
Always set model: explicitly when dispatching a subagent. An omitted model inherits the session model (usually the most capable and most expensive) and silently defeats this policy.
Pick the tier by task complexity and risk:
| Signal | Tier |
| Mechanical / transcription (1-2 files, complete spec) | cheap |
| Integration / multi-file / judgment | standard |
| Design / architecture / high-risk or subtle change | most-capable |
Reviewers floor at standard and rise to most-capable when the artifact is high-risk or subtle.
Turn count beats token price. The cheapest model often takes 2-3× the turns on multi-step work — more wall-clock and context overall. Make a mid-tier model the floor for reviewers and for implementers working from prose; reserve the cheapest tier for transcription tasks whose exact code the plan already contains.
Translate the tier to a concrete model by judgment at dispatch time using your harness's available models. The three tiers are the whole ladder — most-capable is its top rung, not an open-ended "best available". A model that sits above that rung is outside the ladder: never reach it from a tier, and record a one-line reason in the ledger when you override to it. The whole-branch review runs at the reviewer tier — standard, rising to most-capable when the branch is large or subtle — not at whatever model the harness happens to offer. On a harness without per-dispatch model choice, everything runs on the session model — record that in the ledger.
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.

