agentleFS
steepy-itsteepy-it/steepy-apex/skills/review/SKILL.md

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

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.
  • dzhngSkill

    close-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

  • dzhngSkill

    design-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

  • LambenthanSkill

    daily-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

  • LambenthanSkill

    exp-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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Verify completed work with evidence.

    line 9
  2. Very specific:

    Only this SKILL.md is meant to stay in context for the whole run.

    line 42
  3. Very specific:

    Always set model: explicitly when dispatching a subagent.

    line 49

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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.mjs once: keep verbatim command output in the current run's evidence-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-hub command result (Step 3)
  • Report: validate-hub green 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 to main only for regular review or Gear-4 GOAL_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:

StepsFileRead it
Handoff envelope, resume pairs, publication ordermanual-handoff.mdbefore accepting any input, and again before Step 4 publishes
0–1: read the gear, load bounded review inputs and the hubentry.mdat the start of every run, fresh or resumed
2–3: verify against the criteria source, discovery signals, coherence gateverify.mdbefore capturing evidence
4–5: report, version bump, offer a pull requestfinish.mdafter 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:

SignalTier
Mechanical / transcription (1-2 files, complete spec)cheap
Integration / multi-file / judgmentstandard
Design / architecture / high-risk or subtle changemost-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.

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.