Agent review

Skill ethanaubuchon/dossier-tradecraft/skills/agent-review

Claude Code workflow recipes built on dossier-mcp — research → design → scope → decompose → implement as overridable slash commands and skills.

Install

npx -y skills add ethanaubuchon/dossier-tradecraft --skill agent-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use in /implement after committing, inside the draft PR, to review the committed diff. Dispatches a dependency-free review subagent fed the diff + review criteria and returns structured findings (severity / location / problem / fix). The recipe drives the address→re-review loop with a human exit gate; the pr-review-toolkit ceiling is an opt-in override of this skill.

SKILL.md

4.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Agent Review

The review step of /implement's repo path. Runs on committed work (never unstaged changes), inside the draft PR. Dispatches a review subagent — fed the diff plus review criteria — and returns structured findings for the recipe to act on.

Dependency-free by default: a fresh install gets working review with nothing beyond dossier-mcp. The richer pr-review-toolkit specialist panel is an opt-in override of this skill (see Project overrides), not a built-in — so /implement never requires the toolkit.

Input

diff — the committed change to review, as a ref range (default origin/main...HEAD) or a PR number.
criteria (optional) — focus areas; defaults below.
context (optional) — the plan-file path and the ticket / acceptance criteria, passed to the reviewer so it can check the change against intent.

Default review criteria (the floor)

Correctness — does the code do what it claims; do its own commands/claims hold up when checked; logic errors, edge cases, off-by-ones.
AC coverage — does the change actually satisfy the ticket's acceptance criteria.
Silent failures / error handling — swallowed errors, missing guards, fallback that hides real failures.
Internal consistency — self-contradiction; drift from the change's own stated contract.
Convention consistency — does it match sibling code/patterns in the repo.

A project override can replace or extend these. If the AC / plan context isn't provided, the reviewer flags its absence as a gap rather than silently skipping the AC-coverage and intent checks.

Process

Resolve the diff — git diff <range> for a ref range, or gh pr diff <number> for a PR number — plus the list of changed files and the context (plan-file path + AC) if available.
Dispatch a review subagent restricted to read-only tools (no Edit/Write/NotebookEdit — e.g. a read-only agent type), so the no-side-effects contract is structurally enforced, not just instructed. Instruct it to:
- read the diff and the changed files in full;
- check against the criteria and the AC / plan context;
- be skeptical and concrete — verify claims, don't praise; where a claim is checkable (a command, a path, an invariant), check it rather than trust it;
- return findings in the structured format below, plus a one-line verdict.
Return the findings to the recipe. Do not loop or apply fixes here — the recipe owns the address→re-review loop and the human ready-to-publish gate (a primitive can't host an interactive gate).

Output / contract

In: a committed diff (+ optional criteria / context).
Out: a list of findings, each { severity: blocker | major | minor | nit, location, problem (1 sentence), suggested fix (1 sentence) }, plus a one-line verdict (mergeable as-is / mergeable with minor fixes / needs changes before merge). If a severity level has no findings, say so.
Side effects: none — read-only review that dispatches a subagent. No commits, no file edits, no PR state changes.

Project overrides (the ceiling)

The toolkit ceiling is an override, not a default (per the dependency posture):

User-level override (~/.claude/skills/agent-review/) — dispatch pr-review-toolkit's panel (code-reviewer, silent-failure-hunter, type-design-analyzer, comment-analyzer, pr-test-analyzer) and aggregate their output into the same structured-findings format. The user with the toolkit installed gets the rich review everywhere; a fresh user isn't forced into the dependency.
Project-level override — swap a stack-specific reviewer (e.g. a TypeScript- or Ansible-aware agent) or tune the criteria for the repo.

Overrides must honor the contract — input a diff, output structured findings, and stay read-only / side-effect-free — so the recipe's review loop keeps working unchanged.

Future scope

workflow-reviewer — a thin bundled reviewer agent tuned to a terse, critical, why-not-what style, replacing the general-purpose subagent as the floor. This is the self-sufficiency direction: the floor becomes good enough that the toolkit ceiling is rarely needed.