senior-review
Skill16 starsChanged 57 days agoMITView on GitHub
Pragmatic senior developer code review -- evaluates code quality, risks, and conventions through a team lead lens. Standalone or integrated into /review pipeline.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nitrictech/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- isac7722/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- ethansmadjaa/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 9, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- nitrictech/skills★ 2same name
- ethansmadjaa/skills★ 1same name
- isac7722/skills★ 1same 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 repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adviseSkill
- brainstormSkill
- code-navigationSkill
- commitSkill
- create-agents-mdSkill
- create-prSkill
- design-buildSkill
- design-fixSkill
- designSkill
- handoverSkill
- hypothesis-debuggingSkill
- load-handoverSkill
- local-filesSkill
- planSkill
- report-checkSkill
- reviewSkill
- shipSkill
- tddSkill
- verificationSkill
- visual-companionSkill
- workSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 26
Run a pragmatic senior developer code review -- evaluating structural decisions, code quality, risk areas, and language conventions through …
- Very specific: line 34
If any gather-context block above returned NO_GIT, this directory is not a git repository.
- Very specific: line 40
If $ARGUMENTS is empty AND there is no conversation context about what to review (no prior diff discussion, no files mentioned), print:
- Very specific: line 51
If $ARGUMENTS is empty but conversation context exists (e.g., user was just discussing a diff), proceed -- use the contextual diff.
- Distinctive: line 68
If source was set from Step 1 (PR number or URL), skip to Step 3.
- Very specific: line 70
If source is unset, infer from context: "this"/"my changes"/"just made" --> uncommitted.
- Very specific: line 72
Only if intent cannot be inferred, use AskUserQuestion:
- Distinctive: line 81
If user selects "Pull Request" and no PR number was provided, ask:
- Very specific: line 106
If mode is quick, skip this step entirely.
- Distinctive: line 123
Do NOT pass pipeline context.
- Very specific: line 131
After presenting findings, use AskUserQuestion:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
Gather Context
!`git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_GIT"`!`git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_GIT"`!`git log --oneline -10 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_COMMITS"`Senior Review
Run a pragmatic senior developer code review -- evaluating structural decisions, code quality, risk areas, and language conventions through a team lead lens.
Announce: "Using the senior-review skill for a pragmatic code review."
Step 0 -- Git Availability
If any gather-context block above returned NO_GIT, this directory is not a git repository.
Print: > No git repository detected. /senior-review requires a git repo.
Stop here.
Step 0.5 -- Input Validation
If $ARGUMENTS is empty AND there is no conversation context about what to review (no prior diff discussion, no files mentioned), print:
Usage:
/senior-review [--quick] [#PR_NUMBER | PR_URL]Options:
--quick-- Single-pass review (faster, same quality bar)#123or PR URL -- Review a specific pull request- No arguments -- Prompted to select diff source
Stop here.
If $ARGUMENTS is empty but conversation context exists (e.g., user was just discussing a diff), proceed -- use the contextual diff.
Step 1 -- Argument Parsing
Parse $ARGUMENTS:
- Contains
--quick--> set mode toquick, remove flag from remaining arguments - Contains
#NNN(hash + digits) --> set source topr, extract PR number - Contains a URL matching a PR/MR pattern (github.com/.../pull/NNN, gitlab.com/.../-/merge_requests/NNN) --> set source to
pr, extract URL - Otherwise --> source is unset (will prompt in Step 2)
Step 2 -- Diff Source Selection
If source was set from Step 1 (PR number or URL), skip to Step 3.
If source is unset, infer from context: "this"/"my changes"/"just made" --> uncommitted; "branch"/"vs main" --> branch. If clear, skip prompt.
Only if intent cannot be inferred, use AskUserQuestion:
What would you like me to review?
Buttons:
- "Uncommitted changes" --> source =
uncommitted - "Branch diff (vs main/master)" --> source =
branch - "Pull Request" --> source =
pr(will prompt for PR number)
If user selects "Pull Request" and no PR number was provided, ask:
Enter the PR number or URL:
Step 3 -- Diff Gathering
| Source | Command | Notes |
uncommitted | git diff + git diff --staged | Combine both; stop if both empty: "No uncommitted changes found." |
branch | git rev-parse --verify main then git diff main...HEAD | Fall back to master if main missing; stop if empty: "No changes found between current branch and base branch." |
pr | gh pr diff <pr_number_or_url> via Bash tool (not ! block) | Stop if gh fails: "Could not fetch PR diff. Ensure gh CLI is installed and authenticated." |
Also gather the file list: git diff --name-only main...HEAD (for PR source, use gh pr diff --name-only or parse diff headers).
Step 4 -- Language Detection
Language detection is handled by the senior-reviewer agent.
Step 5 -- Context7 Lookup (Full Mode Only)
If mode is quick, skip this step entirely.
For the detected primary language, query context7 for current conventions. One query, primary language only. Skip if quick mode or context7 unavailable.
Step 6 -- Agent Dispatch
Dispatch quiver:senior-reviewer with the following context (in this order):
- Full diff from Step 3.
- Changed file list with detected language(s) from Step 4.
- Mode:
fullorquick. - Context7 results (if available from Step 5, omit if quick mode or unavailable).
- Scope reminder: "Your findings MUST be scoped to code CHANGED in this diff. Reading surrounding code for context is expected; flagging pre-existing issues is not."
- Citation accuracy: "Every file:line reference in your findings must be verified by reading the file. Do not cite line numbers from memory or inference -- use the Read tool to confirm the content at the cited line before including it in a finding."
Do NOT pass pipeline context. This is standalone mode -- Phase 5 (meta-review) must not activate.
Step 7 -- Output
Present the agent's findings in the terminal.
After presenting findings, use AskUserQuestion:
Review complete. What would you like to do?
Buttons:
- "Save report" --> Write to
.claude/reports/senior-review-{timestamp}.md(usedate '+%Y-%m-%d_%H-%M-%S'format). Before the first write, apply the keep-local rule inskills/local-files/SKILL.md. Confirm with:> Report saved to {path} - "Done" --> Stop.
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.

