review-lens
Skill0 starsChanged 14 days agoMITView on GitHub
Review a diff for actionable correctness, security, reliability, and maintainability defects. Use before merging a change or when asked for an independent code review.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- adeonir/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- kameyama/claude_skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- adeonir/agent-skills★ 8same name
- kameyama/claude_skills★ 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 repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agent-skill-auditSkill
- api-contract-checkSkill
- build-rescueSkill
- change-narrativeSkill
- context-handoffSkill
- data-quality-gateSkill
- dataset-workshopSkill
- dependency-careSkill
- docs-syncSkill
- experiment-ledgerSkill
- failure-forensicsSkill
- model-diff-reviewSkill
- model-eval-designSkill
- multi-agent-crosscheckSkill
- parallel-task-designSkill
- performance-proofSkill
- release-readinessSkill
- repo-scoutSkill
- research-evidence-mapSkill
- safe-migrationSkill
- security-surfaceSkill
- spec-firstSkill
- sql-integrity-checkSkill
- test-driven-changeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 10
Read the task or issue first.
- Distinctive: line 12
Look for defects in this order: data loss/security, incorrect behavior, broken compatibility, race conditions, poor error handling, …
- Distinctive: line 13
Check tests against acceptance criteria.
- Distinctive: line 15
Consider what happens for empty, malformed, duplicated, stale, unauthorized, or unexpectedly large input where appropriate.
- Distinctive: line 21
Condition: when it occurs
- Distinctive: line 28
Never fabricate line numbers or imply a test was run when it was not.
- Distinctive: line 29
Do not rewrite the patch as part of a review unless asked to fix findings.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Review Lens
Review method
- Read the task or issue first; identify the intended behavior and compatibility promises.
- Inspect the diff and relevant surrounding code. Do not review only the patch if callers or invariants matter.
- Look for defects in this order: data loss/security, incorrect behavior, broken compatibility, race conditions, poor error handling, performance regressions, then maintainability.
- Check tests against acceptance criteria. Look for untested branches, assertions that cannot fail, brittle timing, hidden reliance on mocks, and snapshots that obscure behavior.
- Validate each suspected issue against an actual execution path or invariant. Do not report style preferences as bugs.
- Consider what happens for empty, malformed, duplicated, stale, unauthorized, or unexpectedly large input where appropriate.
Finding format
For every finding include:
- Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low
- Location: file and line or symbol
- Condition: when it occurs
- Impact: user-visible or operational consequence
- Evidence: why the code causes it
- Fix direction: the smallest practical remedy
Boundaries
- Report findings before praise or summary. If no actionable issue is found, say so and mention the reviewed scope.
- Never fabricate line numbers or imply a test was run when it was not.
- Do not rewrite the patch as part of a review unless asked to fix findings.
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.