lean-review
Skill8 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we delete", "is this over-engineered", "simplify review", or invokes /lean-review. Complements correctness-focused review, this one only hunts complexity.
5 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- rpraharaj/ai-sdlctheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- rpraharaj/ai-engineeredited, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- FareedKhan-dev/lean-agenttheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- dRafaleD/cybersec-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 18, 2026
- MaGe1993/Claude-Code-Base-Harnesstheir own version, first seen Jun 14, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- rpraharaj/ai-engineer★ 113% same
Wrote their own version · 4
- dRafaleD/cybersec-skills★ 2same name
- FareedKhan-dev/lean-agent★ 1same name
- MaGe1993/Claude-Code-Base-Harness★ 1same name
- rpraharaj/ai-sdlc★ 0same name
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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- .cursor/rules/ponytail.mdcCursor rule
- compressSkill
- lean-auditSkill
- lean-commitSkill
- lean-debtSkill
- lean-gainSkill
- lean-helpSkill
- leanSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
1
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 49
If there is nothing to cut, say Lean already.
- Distinctive: line 57
Does not apply the fixes, only lists them.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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 diffs for unnecessary complexity. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. The diff's best outcome is getting shorter.
Format
L<line>: <tag> <what>. <replacement>., or <file>:L<line>: ... for
multi-file diffs.
Tags:
delete:dead code, unused flexibility, speculative feature. Replacement: nothing.stdlib:hand-rolled thing the standard library ships. Name the function.native:dependency or code doing what the platform already does. Name the feature.yagni:abstraction with one implementation, config nobody sets, layer with one caller.shrink:same logic, fewer lines. Show the shorter form.
Examples
❌ "This EmailValidator class might be more complex than necessary, have you considered whether all these validation rules are needed at this stage?"
✅ L12-38: stdlib: 27-line validator class. "@" in email, 1 line, real validation is the confirmation mail.
✅ L4: native: moment.js imported for one format call. Intl.DateTimeFormat, 0 deps.
✅ repo.py:L88: yagni: AbstractRepository with one implementation. Inline it until a second one exists.
✅ L52-71: delete: retry wrapper around an idempotent local call. Nothing replaces it.
✅ L30-44: shrink: manual loop builds dict. dict(zip(keys, values)), 1 line.
Scoring
End with the only metric that matters: net: -<N> lines possible.
If there is nothing to cut, say Lean already. Ship. and stop.
Boundaries
Scope: over-engineering and complexity only. Correctness bugs, security holes,
and performance are explicitly out of scope. Route them to a normal review
pass, not this one. A single smoke test or assert-based
self-check is the Lean minimum, not bloat, never flag it for deletion.
Does not apply the fixes, only lists them.
"stop lean-review" or "normal mode": revert to verbose review style.
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.