agentleFS
Sign inStart free
vibe-cokitvibe-cokit/claude-code/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

code-review

Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Handle incoming review feedback with technical rigor and request reviews via the code-reviewer subagent. Triggers on: review comments that are unclear or look wrong, a finished feature awaiting review, pre-merge to main, PR preparation.

194 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

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

  • PydanticSkill

    add-new-model

    Add support for a newly-released language or image generation model in pydantic-ai (e.g. openai:gpt-5.6, anthropic:claude-sonnet-5, openai:gpt-image-2). Use when a provider ships a new model id and you need to wire literals, profile flags, adapters, and tests to recognize it. Handles SDK-lag, gateway list conventions, capability probing, and direct image-model geometry.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • transitive-bullshitSkill

    compare-screenshots

    Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • Microsoft AzureSkill

    azsdk-common-apiview-feedback-resolution

    Analyze and resolve APIView review feedback on Azure SDK PRs. **UTILITY SKILL**. USE FOR: APIView comments, API review feedback, SDK API surface changes. DO NOT USE FOR: general code review, non-APIView feedback. INVOKES: azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_apiview_get_comments, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_customized_code_update, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_typespec_delegate_apiview_feedback, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_run_typespec_validation, azure-sdk-mcp:azsdk_package_generate_code.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • Microsoft AzureSkill

    azsdk-common-generate-sdk-locally

    Generate and finalize Azure SDKs locally from TypeSpec, including build, checks, tests, changelog, metadata, and version updates by default. WHEN: "generate SDK locally", "build SDK", "run SDK tests", "run CI checks", "validate package", "run checks", "update changelog", "fix SDK build errors", "resolve SDK generation errors", "customize TypeSpec", "rename SDK client", "rename SDK model", "hide operation from SDK", "fix analyzer errors", "resolve customization drift", "create subclient", "update metadata", "update version". INVOKES: azsdk_verify_setup, azsdk_package_generate_code, azsdk_package_build_code, azsdk_package_run_check, azsdk_package_run_tests, azsdk_customized_code_update, azsdk_package_update_changelog_content, azsdk_package_update_metadata, azsdk_package_update_version.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • +4 more from dzhng
  • +2 more from Azure

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 184 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Technical correctness over social comfort: Verify before implementing.

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    No performative agreement: "You're absolutely right!", "Great point!", "Thanks for…".

    line 49
  3. Distinctive:

    No implementation before verification.

    line 50
  4. Distinctive:

    Read the matching reference for the full protocol before acting.

    line 60

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 184 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

Code Review

Three practices, each with its own trigger and protocol reference:

  1. Receiving feedback — technical evaluation over performative agreement → references/code-review-reception.md
  2. Requesting review — systematic review via the code-reviewer subagent → references/requesting-code-review.md
  3. Verification gates — evidence before status claims → references/verification-before-completion.md

Core principle

Honour YAGNI, KISS, DRY. Be honest, brutal, concise.

Technical correctness over social comfort. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.

Which practice applies

Receiving feedback — review comments arrived from any source; feedback unclear or technically questionable; several items need prioritizing; reviewer lacks context; suggestion conflicts with an existing decision.

Requesting review — task done in subagent-driven development (after EACH task); major feature or refactor finished; before merging to main; stuck and want a fresh perspective; after fixing a complex bug.

Verification gates — about to state that tests pass / build succeeds / work is done; before commit, push, or PR.

Decision tree

SITUATION?
│
├─ Received feedback
│  ├─ Unclear items? → STOP, ask for clarification first
│  ├─ From human partner? → Understand, then implement
│  └─ From external reviewer? → Verify technically before implementing
│
├─ Completed work
│  ├─ Major feature/task? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
│  └─ Before merge? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
│
└─ About to claim status
   ├─ Have fresh verification? → State claim WITH evidence
   └─ No fresh verification? → RUN verification command first

Non-negotiables

  • No performative agreement: "You're absolutely right!", "Great point!", "Thanks for…".
  • No implementation before verification; grep for actual usage before building a suggested "proper" feature.
  • Human partner = trusted, implement after understanding. External reviewer = verify correctness and breakage risk, push back when wrong.
  • NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE — identify the command, run it in full, read the output, confirm it supports the claim, then claim. Skipping a step is lying, not verifying.

Integration

  • Subagent-driven work — review after each task, verify before moving on.
  • Pull requests — verified tests, then code-reviewer review, then merge.
  • Fix Critical findings immediately, Important before proceeding, note Minor for later.

Read the matching reference for the full protocol before acting.

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.

Reviews can't be read right now.

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.

Check your setup, free