Claudemd review
Go CLI + profile templates that standardize how Claude Code works across every project
npx -y skills add patrickserrano/lacquer --skill claudemd-reviewAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 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 right after being corrected on something a CLAUDE.md file should already have told you, when explicitly asked to review CLAUDE.md, or periodically after a session with a lot of back-and-forth — reviews THIS conversation for friction and proposes a bounded CLAUDE.md edit. A lightweight, single-session complement to skill-tuning-loop (which mines many sessions and validates a proposal against held-out cases before surfacing it — reach for that instead when the ask is "make this systematic," not "check right now"). Own version of the dx plugin's `/dx:review-claudemd`.
SKILL.md
2.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
CLAUDE.md Review
A quick self-check, not a pipeline: read back over this conversation, find places where the human corrected something a project rule should have already covered, and propose a small, bounded edit. Nothing here gets applied without the human reviewing it first.
Process
- Scan this conversation for corrections, "no, actually", or repeated
clarifications — the same signal
skill-tuning-loop's Mine stage looks for in past sessions, except you already have the transcript in context. - For each one, classify it:
- Already covered, ignored anyway — the relevant CLAUDE.md already says this; the fix is emphasis or clarity, not new content.
- Genuinely missing — no existing rule addresses it; a new line would have prevented the correction.
- One-off — specific to this task, not a durable project convention. Don't propose an edit for this; CLAUDE.md is for what generalizes.
- Propose a MINIMAL diff for the "genuinely missing" and "ignored anyway" cases only. Match the file's existing voice and structure — don't restructure sections that aren't implicated. State the rule concretely (name the specific convention), not "follow best practices."
- Present the diff, don't apply it. Show the human the proposed addition and why (quote the correction that motivated it). They edit the file, not you — CLAUDE.md is read on every session for every task in the project; a bad edit here is a bad edit everywhere.
When to reach for skill-tuning-loop instead
This skill only ever sees one conversation, so it can mistake a one-off
correction for a durable pattern. If the same friction keeps showing up
across sessions and you want a validated, evidence-gated proposal rather
than a quick check, that's what skill-tuning-loop is for.