review-spec-local
Skill313 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Repo-specific spec-review guidance for oz-for-oss. Only the categories declared overridable by the core review-spec skill may be specialized here.
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- bootstrap-issue-configSkill
- create-product-specSkill
- create-tech-specSkill
- dedupe-issue-localSkill
- dedupe-issueSkill
- evaluate-auto-implement-eligibilitySkill
- implement-issueSkill
- review-pr-localSkill
- review-specSkill
- security-review-prSkill
- security-review-specSkill
- triage-issue-localSkill
- triage-issueSkill
- update-dedupeSkill
- update-pr-reviewSkill
- update-triageSkill
- verify-prSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
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 26
Prefer repo-root-relative links over absolute filesystem paths in spec prose.
- Very specific: line 27
When a spec references another spec in the same repository, link to it via its relative path under specs/.
≈ “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
Repo-specific spec-review guidance for oz-for-oss
This file is a companion to the core review-spec skill. It does not
redefine the review output schema, severity labels, safety rules, or
evidence rules. It only specializes the override categories the core
skill marks as overridable.
Required spec sections in this repository
Spec pull requests in this repo land under specs/GH<issue-number>/ and
typically include both a product.md and a tech.md. When reviewing, check that:
product.mdclearly states the problem, goals, non-goals, user experience, and validation plantech.mdclearly states the problem, relevant code, current state, proposed changes, risks, and follow-ups- both files reference the originating GitHub issue by number in the top-level heading
- internal links reference files and line ranges using the repo-root-relative convention (for example
path/file:lineorpath/file (start-end))
Linking conventions
- Prefer repo-root-relative links over absolute filesystem paths in spec prose.
- When a spec references another spec in the same repository, link to it via its relative path under
specs/.
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.