review
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Read-only team review of a diff, branch, or PR — the auditor (security, structure), tester (contract protection, coverage gaps), and ux (only if user-facing surfaces change) review in parallel; findings are merged, deduplicated, severity-ranked, and delivered with a verdict. Nothing is modified. Use when the user asks the team to review changes without implementing anything.
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
- 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
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
- 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
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 repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- breaking-changeSkill
- buildSkill
- defineSkill
- final-validationSkill
- fixSkill
- refactorSkill
- semantic-architectureSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 157 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
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
- Very specific: line 27
No edits, no commits, no "quick fixes while we're here".
“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
Team review
Target: $ARGUMENTS
You are the orchestrator. This pipeline is strictly read-only: every role returns findings and precise instructions, never edits.
Choreography
- Scope the changeset. Resolve the target to a concrete diff: a git range, a branch against the default branch, a PR (via
ghif available), or — if the target is empty — the working tree's uncommitted changes plus the current branch. State explicitly what you resolved it to. List the files touched and classify them: production code, tests, config, docs; note whether user-facing surfaces (UI, copy, API responses) change. - Parallel review. Spawn simultaneously:
auditor— full security and structural pass over the diff, using its own checklists (including asymmetric-pattern and cargo-cult checks).tester— contract lens: does the diff change behavior without tests? Do modified tests weaken expectations to fit the implementation (the cardinal sin)? What coverage is missing for the risk introduced? It may run the project's documented test targets (sequentially) to ground findings, but changes nothing.ux— only if user-facing surfaces changed: flows, copy, states, consistency. Otherwise skip it and say so.
- Merge. Deduplicate overlapping findings (keep the most precise version), rank by severity — STOP / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW — and anchor each to
file:linewhere possible. - Verdict and report.
- Verdict: approve / approve with comments / request changes. Any STOP or HIGH finding forces request changes.
- Findings ranked, each with: what, where, why it matters, and a precise fix instruction.
- State explicitly what was NOT reviewed and why (ux skipped, tests not executed, areas given a lighter pass) — silent gaps read as coverage.
Rules
- No edits, no commits, no "quick fixes while we're here". Applying findings is a separate follow-up:
/squad:fixfor confirmed bugs,/squad:define+/squad:buildfor scoped work. - On very large diffs, review by area and disclose which areas got lighter passes rather than silently sampling.
- Findings must be actionable by someone who did not read the whole diff: include enough context in each one.
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.