Review

Skill honerlaw/agent-marketplace/plugins/minerva/skills/review

A personal plugin marketplace for AI coding agents. Each plugin provides skills and automation scripts.

Install

npx -y skills add honerlaw/agent-marketplace --skill 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

0 stars0 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

Reviews a changeset against both the minerva spec/knowledge lenses and code quality. With a work unit in context it runs a spec/knowledge audit alongside the code quality review, presenting both result sets before unified triage; if a GitHub PR exists for the branch it delegates code quality to `code-review:code-review`, otherwise it performs a check via a fresh-context subagent in the same finding format. Triage state persists to the scratchpad so re-runs pre-fill prior dispositions. Use when implementation on a work unit has just finished and the diff is unreviewed, when the user asks to review or audit a changeset or to verify shipped code matches what was designed, or when they invoke `minerva:review`.

SKILL.md

3.1 KB, 562 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Review the active changeset for both design compliance and code quality. Works against the local diff — no PR required. When a minerva work unit is found, runs a spec/knowledge audit alongside the code quality review and presents both result sets in parallel before triage. When no minerva context exists, runs the code quality review alone.

Usage

minerva:review — audits the work unit inferred from current-session context, or the most-recently-modified if context is ambiguous; falls back to a plain code review if no work unit is found
minerva:review 005-add-payments — audit the named unit explicitly

Protocol

The full step protocols live verbatim in references/protocol.md — read it now, before executing: Target resolution → Worktree entry → Diff resolution → Minerva audit (spec fidelity + knowledge compliance; only when minerva context exists) → Code review invocation (delegates to code-review:code-review when a PR exists, fresh-context subagent check otherwise) → Parallel presentation → Interactive triage (FIX / SUGGEST / IGNORE) → Triage persistence (scratchpad pre-fill for re-runs) → On approval — file writes → Report.

Lifecycle ordering

Canonical order: minerva:work → minerva:review → minerva:promote → minerva:ship. Review runs before promote so review-derived scratchpad notes flow through the promote partition. If review surfaces durable knowledge that promote already ran on, run promote again. The skills are idempotent — cycle as needed.

Idempotency

Review is stateless across runs except for the ## Review triage YYYY-MM-DD blocks it writes to scratchpad for resume. Re-running on the same diff produces the same findings; dispositions are pre-filled from the most recent triage block.

minerva:review  →  fixes applied  →  minerva:promote  →  minerva:review  →  zero findings  →  minerva:ship

Out of scope

Writing to .minerva/knowledge/ directly. All durable knowledge goes through minerva:promote — one writer, one set of conventions.
A review.md log file. FIX outcomes are visible in git; SUGGEST and IGNORE outcomes flow through scratchpad → promote. Triage state lives in scratchpad. A standalone log duplicates what those already capture.
Scoped review (e.g. minerva:review src/api/). Deferred until the no-scope default proves noisy.

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most quality gates skills give in 562 tokens

Counted across 1,195 of the 2,094 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06

read the output and check the exit codein 55 of 1195, across 14 files
verify requirements using a line-by-line checklistin 53 of 1195, across 12 files
identify the verification command proving the claimin 53 of 1195, across 12 files
run the full verification commandin 51 of 1195, across 11 files
verify output confirms the claimin 49 of 1195, across 10 files
check version control diff after agent delegationin 45 of 1195, across 5 files
state claim with evidencein 43 of 1195, across 3 files
run the test suitein 32 of 1195, across 24 files
keep state in memory by defaultin 27 of 1195, across 6 files
make prototype runnable with one commandin 26 of 1195, across 5 files
detect the package manager from lockfilesin 24 of 1195, across 5 files
produce a verification reportin 23 of 1195, across 12 files

Said here and by no other author read

resolve the target work unit from session context
resolve the local diff for review
run the minerva spec and knowledge audit
invoke the code quality review process
present review findings in parallel before triage
triage findings as FIX, SUGGEST, or IGNORE

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.