Use when performing a code review of changes, a diff, a commit, or a merge request in this project. Defines the review procedure and the criteria (in criteria/) the code must be evaluated against.
Review a pull request or a proposed change to this repository. Use when asked to review a pull request, a diff, or a branch, and when a review finding needs evidence before it is reported.
Use when asked to review code, audit a file for bugs, check code quality, or suggest improvements. Provides a structured review process and issue categorisation.
Review a pull request in XRPL-Standards. Use for any PR in this repository, especially one that changes an XLS-*/README.md, the templates, or the validation scripts.
Analyzes code changes for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance problems, and architectural improvements. Generates structured markdown reports with evidence-based findings tied to specific file:line references, and creates Beads tasks for tracking. Adapts review depth based on scope — from quick pre-commit checks to thorough branch reviews. Use proactively when reviewing code before commits, after implementing features, before PRs, when checking code quality, or when the user mentions "review", "check changes", "code review", "PR review", "review branch", or any code quality assessment.
Review code changes following HMIS project standards. Use when reviewing a pull request, verifying code changes, or checking code quality. Covers CodeRabbit verification, backward compatibility, persistence checks, and project-specific patterns.
2363mo agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Review llama.cpp changes against project conventions and common reviewer pitfalls before a PR. Use when the user wants to review a diff, branch, or PR.
Review llama.cpp changes against project conventions and common reviewer pitfalls before a PR. Use when the user wants to review a diff, branch, or PR.
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/PRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".
Review code quality, receive feedback with technical rigor, verify completion claims. Use before PRs, after implementing features, when claiming task completion. Includes scout-based edge case detection and native Task pipeline orchestration.
Reviews pull requests in this repository for the defect classes a mechanical checklist misses: documentation that outlived the code it describes, reaction and retry state that leaks or clobbers a sibling, contract widenings that leave test doubles silently asserting nothing, kind-keyed maps missing a new entry, configuration literals that mean opposite things in adjacent blocks, error-taxonomy routing gaps, and wire assumptions that break on pagination. Use on every pull request review in addition to the coding standards in copilot-instructions.md. Covers Go orchestrator code, adapter packages, the architecture specification under docs/architecture/, accepted decision records, and operator-facing strings.
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".
Review Azure SDK for C++ pull requests for actionable regressions and C++ SDK API or implementation guideline violations. Use for GitHub Copilot Code Review (CCR) of SDK code and its related tests, CMake files, samples, and documentation.
Run CodeRabbit CLI reviews, retrieve saved local or GitHub PR fix prompts, and interpret CodeRabbit authentication and review output. Use for CodeRabbit review commands, committed/uncommitted or directory scopes, and CodeRabbit runbooks. Default code-review skill: also trigger for explicit code/PR/quality/security review requests or when a review is needed.
Reviews new or changed CODE on aspire.dev for correctness, safety, and adequate test coverage — not documentation prose. USE FOR: reviewing a PR supplied as a number or URL (or the current branch's diff), checking C#/TypeScript/Astro/HTML/CSS changes for bugs, catching correctness/security/data-loss/accessibility regressions, verifying that important scenarios have unit tests, e2e tests (desktop/tablet/mobile), and axe-core accessibility tests. DO NOT USE FOR: validating documentation content or examples (use doc-tester), reviewing a documentation PR for factual accuracy (use doc-pr-reviewer), writing or fixing docs pages (use doc-writer), two-slash TypeScript blocks (use twoslash-validator), or nitpicking style/formatting (ESLint and Prettier own that). INVOKES: git (read-only diff inspection), gh (to resolve and fetch a PR by number or URL), and optionally the repo's existing test commands for verification. FOR SINGLE OPERATIONS: read the diff with git or gh pr diff and apply the relevant language checklist directly.
Plain text files in a repository that tell a coding agent how the project works: commands to run, conventions to follow and things to avoid. CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, cursor rules and skills are the common kinds.
CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md?
CLAUDE.md is read by Claude Code. AGENTS.md is an open format that Codex, Cursor and other agents read. Many projects keep one and point the other at it.
What is a skill?
A folder with a SKILL.md that describes one capability, such as filling PDFs or reviewing code. The agent loads it only when the task calls for it.
Can I search my own team's files too?
Your agents already can, over MCP, limited to the files you're allowed to read. Searching them from this page is coming.