agentsclimarketplace

Caveman review

Skill nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles/profiles/juliusbrussee/caveman/for-forgecat/skills/caveman-review

Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles --skill caveman-review

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

SKILL.md

2.7 KB, 593 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.

Rules

Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. β€” or <file>:L<line>: ... when reviewing multi-file diffs.

Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):

  • πŸ”΄ bug: β€” broken behavior, will cause incident
  • 🟑 risk: β€” works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)
  • πŸ”΅ nit: β€” style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore
  • ❓ q: β€” genuine question, not a suggestion

Drop:

  • "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."
  • "This is just a suggestion but..." β€” use nit: instead
  • "Great work!", "Looks good overall but..." β€” say it once at the top, not per comment
  • Restating what the line does β€” the reviewer can read the diff
  • Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe", "I think") β€” if unsure use q:

Keep:

  • Exact line numbers
  • Exact symbol/function/variable names in backticks
  • Concrete fix, not "consider refactoring this"
  • The why if the fix isn't obvious from the problem statement

Examples

❌ "I noticed that on line 42 you're not checking if the user object is null before accessing the email property. This could potentially cause a crash if the user is not found in the database. You might want to add a null check here."

βœ… L42: πŸ”΄ bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.

❌ "It looks like this function is doing a lot of things and might benefit from being broken up into smaller functions for readability."

βœ… L88-140: πŸ”΅ nit: 50-line fn does 4 things. Extract validate/normalize/persist.

❌ "Have you considered what happens if the API returns a 429? I think we should probably handle that case."

βœ… L23: 🟑 risk: no retry on 429. Wrap in withBackoff(3).

Auto-Clarity

Drop terse mode for: security findings (CVE-class bugs need full explanation + reference), architectural disagreements (need rationale, not just a one-liner), and onboarding contexts where the author is new and needs the "why". In those cases write a normal paragraph, then resume terse for the rest.

Boundaries

Reviews only β€” does not write the code fix, does not approve/request-changes, does not run linters. Output the comment(s) ready to paste into the PR. "stop caveman-review" or "normal mode": revert to verbose review style.

What ships with it: 1 file

1.2 KB alongside SKILL.md

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most code review skills give in 593 tokens

Counted across 668 of the 814 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-09-06

  • Provide technical reasoning when pushing backin 84 of 668, across 70 files
  • Fix critical issues immediatelyin 77 of 668, across 60 files
  • Dispatch a code reviewer subagentin 76 of 668, across 59 files
  • Fix important issues before proceedingin 73 of 668, across 56 files
  • Ask for clarification on unclear itemsin 68 of 668, across 56 files
  • Verify feedback against codebase before implementationin 66 of 668, across 55 files
  • Implement fixes one at a timein 64 of 668, across 53 files
  • Test each fix individuallyin 62 of 668, across 51 files
  • Restate technical requirements in own wordsin 57 of 668, across 46 files
  • Reply to inline comments in the specific threadin 51 of 668, across 40 files
  • Note minor issues for laterin 49 of 668, across 34 files
  • Group findings by severityin 48 of 668, across 47 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • Write comments in one line
  • Use full explanation for security findings
  • Use full explanation for architectural disagreements
  • Use full explanation for onboarding contexts

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.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.