reviewer
Skill76 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Load when reviewing a diff, classifying findings, or returning a verdict.
33 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- NilsHellwig/acl-paper-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Vinix24/vnx-orchestrationtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- ChrisAraneo/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- J-T-McC/dev-teamtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Rhovian/nilestheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- cathaysia/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 23, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use tester, planner and 3 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.
KJ-devsSkilltester
Écrit les tests en TDD (Red phase first) et vérifie leur passage (Green phase). Frontend avec Playwright, backend avec BDD Given-When-Then.
Also in 4 projects that use this
am-willSkillplanner
Create comprehensive, phased implementation plans with sprints and atomic tasks. Use when user says: "make a plan", "create a plan", "plan this out", "plan the implementation", "help me plan", "design a plan", "draft a plan", "write a plan", "outline the steps", "break this down into tasks", "what's the plan for", or any similar planning request. Also triggers on explicit "/planner" or "/plan" commands.
Also in 5 projects that use this
tesla0225Skillorchestrator
Issue/要件を受けたら分解→担当割当→実装→検証→統合を回す手順。未整備なら /repo-init でbootstrap。
Also in 4 projects that use this
Harut8Skillarchitect
Also in 3 projects that use this
NVIDIASkillresearch
Before designing a feature, research how comparable libraries solve the problem, check best practices, known pitfalls, and upstream changes. Use when starting a new feature, investigating an unfamiliar area, or the user asks to research something.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions33 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 33
- pydantic/pydantic-ai★ 21ksame name
- keli-wen/agy-staff★ 828same name
- Vinix24/vnx-orchestration★ 63same name
- microsoft/aspnetcore-ja-handbook★ 33same name
- jshsakura/awesome-opencode-skills★ 30same name
- felvieira/claude-skills-fv★ 27same name
- arctan303/creator.skill★ 19same name
- Victorcorcos/skills★ 7same name
- Rhovian/niles★ 4same name
- alphazede/bearing-lite★ 3same name
23 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 repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- crates/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .github/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- hooks/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- pi-extensions/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- tools/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- ui/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- crates/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- hooks/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- pi-extensions/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- skills/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- tools/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- ui/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- app-deploySkill
- bot-instructionsSkill
- code-qualitySkill
- commit-guardsSkill
- deciderSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- dep-radarSkill
- devSkill
- doc-limitsSkill
- docs-writingSkill
- githubSkill
- iced-rsSkill
- kendex-issuesSkill
- linearSkill
- orchSkill
- preflightSkill
- price-handlingSkill
- project-managementSkill
- review-gateSkill
- second-opinionSkill
- worktreeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 24 edited versions we read keep these.
3
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
- Distinctive: line 39
Verify before reporting: if the repo contains the caller, config, test, or doc that settles a suspicion, read it.
- Distinctive: line 41
Report the class, not the instance: When a finding generalizes (the same missing guard at sibling sites), enumerate every affected site in …
- Distinctive: line 51
Do not re-verify what deterministic gates already enforce (preflight, doc-limits, project lint/CI).
- Very specific: line 68
Write a control's files under a mktemp -d of your own, the way scripts/mutation-stability does: stubs, fixtures, mutants, logs.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 24 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
<!-- kendex:project-instructions:start -->Project Instructions
<!-- kendex:shared-instructions:start -->Problems with a kendex-owned skill go through kendex report; check ownership in the file first.
<!-- kendex:shared-instructions:end --><!-- kendex:project-instructions:end -->Reviewer
Shared contract for every review specialist; each agent's domain and probes live in its own agent file. These workflows run orch scripts and do not stand alone.
| Workflow | Purpose |
workflows/review.md | Code review: diff → findings → JSON artifact → verdict |
workflows/codebase-review.md | Whole-codebase audit, no diff |
workflows/qa-review.md | QA label-triggered review of one PR |
Ethos
- Verify before reporting: if the repo contains the caller, config, test, or doc that settles a suspicion, read it. Never file "maybe X handles this" when X is in the repo.
- Never trust a green check you have not seen fail: prove each instrument the change adds or modifies once on a control input that must fail, regardless of how many times the suite invokes it, before trusting its pass. A changed test carrying the statement code-quality § Tests takes in place of its control is judged on that statement. Zero samples or a nonzero measuring pipeline = instrument failure: declare the top-level
measurement_failed(schemas/review-finding.md), cite no numbers. A zero RESULT is a result:stability: 0/10is ten measured runs and a finding. - Report the class, not the instance. When a finding generalizes (the same missing guard at sibling sites), enumerate every affected site in that one finding.
- Duplicated judgment is a finding. Logic the diff introduces or arms that re-answers a question implemented elsewhere in the repo, or at another site in the same file, is raised even when both copies agree, and so is a rule it restates that another file owns, in prose, config or a table; name the surviving copy.
- A claim needs the line that makes it true. For every sentence the diff adds to a
--help, SKILL.md, CHANGELOG entry, comment, or diagnostic that states an order, a source set, an exit code, or a guarantee, find the code that makes it true. None found is a blocker; the claim is the defect, not the code. - Plausible by default. Never refute a finding as "speculative" or "depends on runtime state" when the state is realistic, meaning reached by a producer you can name rather than merely conceivable: nil/undefined on a rare-but-reachable path (error handler, cold cache, missing optional field); a falsy zero treated as missing; an off-by-one on a boundary the code does not exclude; retry storms and partial failures; a regex or allowlist that lost an anchor. A finding is refuted only when the refutation is constructible from the code: factually wrong (quote the line), provably impossible (show the type, constant, or invariant), already guarded in the diff (cite the guard), or pure style with no observable effect. Whether a reach clears the filing bar is the dispositioner's call at orch finding-disposition § Filing bar, never the reviewer's.
- Judge Markdown against
../docs-writing/SKILL.md, not taste: a finding cites its standard or its file-type list, and never restates the rule. Source comments stay code-quality § Comments and Prose. - Fewer high-conviction findings beat lists of nits.
- A reviewer writes nothing but its artifact and leaves the reviewed worktree as it found it: the
reviewer-read-onlyhook refuses an edit, a write into a repository, a commit, a push and Git discard commands, and thereviewer-stop-checkhook refuses a stop that leaves the tree dirty. - Project decisions and architecture docs outrank generic heuristics. Do not contradict or re-litigate the decisions the delegation lists.
- A hook or gate is judged against the workflow that runs it: name the event it fires on, the state that exists there (committed, staged, on disk), and the flow that reaches it; a trigger the standard flow never meets is a defect.
- A number in prose (a cap, a default, a count, a threshold) is re-derived from the code or the setting that holds it; a stated value the code does not carry is the defect.
- Do not re-verify what deterministic gates already enforce (preflight, doc-limits, project lint/CI); cite gate output only for the property the gate tests, and name that property: a gate's name is not its predicate.
blockers[]= worth stopping the merge: a real domain regression or high-risk uncertainty only the author can resolve.suggestions[]= actionable now (fix) or worth tracking (issue). Cosmetic items belong in neither.passmeans your domain has no verified blocker in scope.
Output Contract
Capture the starting fields before reviewing. Findings are a JSON artifact per schemas/review-finding.md, written with the harness file-write tool, never shell redirection, to the delegation's Artifact: path. When the delegation carries no Artifact: line, mint the path yourself ([AGENT] = your full agent name):
.agents/skills/orch/scripts/review-artifact-check --path [WORKTREE_PATH] [AGENT]Self-validate before returning, on the file you wrote, never the zero-epoch glob form, which falls through to an older sibling. Fix until this prints "ok": true:
.agents/skills/orch/scripts/review-artifact-check --file [ARTIFACT_PATH] [WORKTREE_PATH]Write a control's files under a mktemp -d of your own, the way scripts/mutation-stability does: stubs, fixtures, mutants, logs. The scratchpad root is shared with the parallel panel, where a sibling overwrites a fixed name mid-review.
Return by sending the workflow's <output_format> block, filled verbatim, nothing added, as an agent-to-agent message; a disk write is never a return. Shell commands follow orch SKILL.md § Harness-Safe Shell.
Re-Review Rounds
Items the delegation lists as resolved are not re-reported, unless you check a Fixed item against the current diff and the defect is still there. Report that one again, copying the listed entry's location and description verbatim and naming its recorded commit sha in your recommendation, or saying it was recorded then dropped in a rebase when the entry carries no sha. A Fixed item you did not check, and every Escalated item, stays suppressed.
The delegation's Diff-range is the fix diff: scope the pass to that range and its blast radius, not a fresh full read. With no range, the line absent or reading unavailable, the pass is unscoped, and workflows/review.md § 1 owns what it reads and what it declares. Sweep every fixed defect's class before passing.
Mutation-Stability Pairing
Mutation proves a test can fail; stability proves it fails only for the right reason. Run both with one command, on a copy, never in the shared tree:
.agents/skills/reviewer/scripts/mutation-stability --worktree [WORKTREE_PATH] --sha [SHA] --test '[TEST_CMD]' --build '[BUILD_CMD]' --mutate '[MUTATE_CMD]'- Kill the mutant under every selection/invocation mode the changed code exposes, not only the default (one call per mode).
- A kill counts only when the mutated copy compiles. Use the suite's compile-without-running command for
--build. - Prove a behavior-preserving swap by driving both implementations through the real entry point and diffing every observable; the source diff alone cannot prove equivalence.
- Copy the printed
mutation: … stability: …line into your artifact'ssummary; that field andqa_metadataare the only carriers read as your own measurement. - Mutation-pass + any stability-fail is a concurrency-sensitive finding, never a pass. A survived mutant means the test is not evidence.
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.

