Review a Jolt pull request with extreme thoroughness, outside CI, before an authorized account attests a clean review of its exact head: a lead reviewer fans out parallel subagents that hunt bugs and tech debt, and runs checks in a credential-free sandbox. USE FOR: - Reviewing a pull request before attesting it - Posting one review to a PR when a reviewer routine asks for it TRIGGERS: - "review PR", "code review", "review changes" - "diff review", "PR feedback", "check PR" - "analyze diff", "critique code", "review code" - "pull request review", "GitHub PR review"
1.1k9d agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, PR, or merge-base) on two axes — Standards (does it follow this repo's documented rules?) and Spec (does it do what the originating issue asked?). Each axis returns a verdict per enumerated item rather than an open-ended list of findings, so a round terminates. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, working-tree changes, or asks to "review since X"; and again after fixes, to review the fix.
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security).
Review pull requests, commits, or diffs for high-signal engineering issues and merge risk. Use when asked to review code, audit a patch, find bugs, or provide merge readiness feedback. Focus on defects introduced by the proposed changes (correctness, security, performance, reliability, and maintainability) and report actionable findings with severity, confidence, and precise code locations.
Six-dimension code review of a phase's changes: service delegation, framework standards, ADR compliance, plan sync, coding standards and general quality. Returns a binary PASS or NEEDS_CHANGES verdict with every finding classed BLOCKING, RECOMMENDATION or NOTE. Used by implement-phase as its Step 4 quality gate, or manually to review a set of changes against the project's own standards and ADRs. Invoked as devflow:code-review; Claude Code's built-in /code-review is a different, bug-focused review of the current diff. For a hostile multi-persona review use adversarial-reviewer; for security depth use devflow:security-review.
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along three axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo''s documented coding standards?), Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?), and Adversarial (how does the change fail in production?). Runs each axis in an independent host reader and applies the repository external-peer policy. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".
Performs an architectural and quality code review on a specified file or set of files. Checks for coding standard compliance, architectural pattern adherence, SOLID principles, testability, and performance concerns.
Always use this skill before claiming any work is done, fixed, passing, or complete — even if it seems obvious. Also use when receiving code review feedback from any source (human or automated), when finishing a task or major feature, before committing or creating a PR, or when about to express satisfaction with work. Covers three practices: receiving feedback with technical rigor (no performative agreement), triggering code review via /code-review command or cook/fix pipelines, and verification gates (run the command, read the output, then make the claim). Never skip — the cost of false completion claims is higher than the cost of verifying. References: code-review-reception.md, requesting-code-review.md, verification-before-completion.md.
Review a change against repo standards and its originating spec, with parallel sub-agents. Use when the user asks to review a branch, PR, commit, or WIP changes, or to \"review since X\".
Run a full-codebase audit of CachiBot using 8 parallel review agents (DRY, Security, API, Data, Frontend, Tests, State, Observability). Each agent reports findings with file paths and line numbers, compiled into a dated report.
Procedure to review a pull request in mixpanel-headless and check each finding before it is posted. Use for every pull request review in this repository.
Review pull requests in the Tenstorrent skills marketplace for plugin contracts, agent authorization, executable tooling, and trustworthy evaluation evidence. Use for changes to skills, supporting scripts, tests, or marketplace configuration in this repository.
Delegation mode for open-code-review (OCR). Instead of OCR calling an LLM endpoint, this skill instructs the host agent to perform the code review itself, using OCR only for deterministic engineering: file selection and rule resolution. Use when the host agent should drive the review with its own LLM capabilities.
40k38d agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
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.