agentsclimarketplace

Autoreview

Skill prof-ramos/skills/autoreview-agnostic/claude-code/.claude/skills/autoreview

Skills pessoais

Install
npx -y skills add prof-ramos/skills --skill autoreview

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

Closeout structured code review. Use after non-trivial edits before commit/ship, or to review a local branch/PR/commit. The reviewer is read-only, returns a JSON findings bundle against a fixed schema, verifies every finding against real code, and rejects speculative/broad/unrealistic findings. Invoke via the /autoreview slash command or the autoreview subagent.

SKILL.md

6.1 KB, ~1.4k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Autoreview (Claude Code)

Structured closeout code review for Claude Code. This is a review skill, not approval routing and not a license to rewrite the task.

When to use

  • After non-trivial code edits, before final/commit/ship.
  • User asks for a second-model review, autoreview, or closeout check.
  • Reviewing a local branch or PR branch after fixes.

Invocation

Two equivalent entry points:

  1. Slash command (delegates to the subagent):

    /autoreview                    # auto target (dirty local → PR base → origin/main)
    /autoreview local              # dirty worktree (unstaged + staged + untracked)
    /autoreview branch origin/main # diff vs base
    /autoreview commit HEAD        # single committed change
    
  2. Subagent directly via the Task tool with subagent_type: autoreview, passing the target mode and any base/commit ref.

The autoreview subagent is defined in .claude/agents/autoreview.md with a read-only tool set (Read, Grep, Glob, Bash restricted to read-only git/gh + the bundled helper, WebFetch, WebSearch).

Contract (preserved from the OpenClaw original)

  • Review output is advisory. Never blindly apply it.
  • Verify every finding by reading the real code path and adjacent files with Read/Grep/Glob; read dependency docs/source with WebFetch/WebSearch when a finding depends on external behavior.
  • Reject unrealistic edge cases, speculative risks, broad rewrites, and fixes that over-complicate the codebase.
  • Prefer the smallest fix at the correct ownership boundary; no refactor unless it clearly improves the bug class.
  • When an accepted finding shows a bug class or repeated pattern, inspect the current PR scope for sibling instances with Grep/Glob before fixing.
  • Keep reviewing until the structured output returns no accepted/actionable findings — but only while the work stays inside the original task scope.
  • If a review-triggered fix changes code, rerun focused tests and rerun the review.
  • Never switch or override the requested model. If the review hits capacity, retry the same command a few times with the same model.
  • Do not invoke nested reviewers or reviewer panels from inside the review. One bundle, one review, one structured result, stop.
  • Stop as soon as the review exits with no accepted/actionable findings. Do not run an extra review just to get nicer "clean" wording.
  • Do not push just to review. Push only when the user requested push/ship/PR update.

Scope governor

Freeze a scope baseline before the first review: original request, target branch, intended behavior, owner boundary, changed files, non-test LOC. For inherited or already-bloated branches, use the intended PR diff as the baseline, not all branch drift.

Classify each finding before acting:

  • In-scope blocker — introduced by the current diff, same owner boundary, fixable without changing the task's contract.
  • Follow-up — real, but adjacent bug class / sibling surface / broader track.
  • Stop-and-escalate — requires a new protocol/config/storage/public API contract, a different owner boundary, a release-process change, or a design choice outside the original request.

Stop and report a scope break instead of continuing when:

  • a narrow PR turns into an architecture/protocol/migration/release-process change;
  • the diff grows past 2x the original files or non-test LOC without explicit approval to expand scope;
  • two review-triggered patch cycles have not converged (pause and reclassify every remaining finding before another edit);
  • the best fix is "define the canonical contract first" rather than another local inference layer;
  • fixing the accepted finding would make the PR no longer describe the same behavior, issue, or owner boundary.

Release branches: apply freeze discipline even when the branch name is not release-like. Fix only release blockers, failed release infra, exact backports, install/upgrade breakage, data loss, crashes, or concrete security exposure. Non-blocking findings are follow-ups for main.

Pick target

Use scripts/diff-bundle.sh (read-only) to gather the bundle:

bash .claude/skills/autoreview/scripts/diff-bundle.sh --mode local
bash .claude/skills/autoreview/scripts/diff-bundle.sh --mode branch --base origin/main
bash .claude/skills/autoreview/scripts/diff-bundle.sh --mode commit --commit HEAD

If an open PR exists, use its actual base:

base=$(gh pr view --json baseRefName --jq .baseRefName)
bash .claude/skills/autoreview/scripts/diff-bundle.sh --mode branch --base "origin/$base"

Output

Exactly one JSON object matching references/schema.json. See references/rubric.md for what to report and what to reject. Empty findings + patch is correct is the clean result; report it as autoreview clean: no accepted/actionable findings reported.

Final report

Include: review command/mode used, tests/proof run (if any), findings accepted/rejected with one-line reasons, and the clean/incorrect verdict from the final run. Do not run another review solely to improve final-report wording.

Safety

  • Never replace, expose, or transmit secrets/tokens/credentials. If one appears in the bundle, flag the risk as a security finding and do not reproduce its value.
  • Never edit, write, commit, push, or run destructive commands (reviewer is read-only; the Bash tool is restricted to read-only git/gh + the helper).
  • Never send data to external services beyond read-only doc lookups (WebFetch/ WebSearch) the user can see.
  • Never modify files outside the reviewed project.
  • Always separate facts (from read code/docs) from inferences.
  • Never mask validation failures or suggest unsafe fixes.

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most pr commit review skills give in ~1.4k tokens

Counted across 888 of the 1,342 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06

  • use conventional commits formatin 123 of 888, across 110 files
  • keep subject line under 72 charactersin 60 of 888, across 46 files
  • delete branches after mergein 50 of 888, across 37 files
  • use imperative mood in subject linein 50 of 888, across 41 files
  • use imperative mood in commit messagesin 45 of 888
  • generate a conventional commit messagein 42 of 888
  • make atomic commitsin 37 of 888, across 25 files
  • run tests before committingin 36 of 888, across 24 files
  • run project test suite to verify clean baselinein 35 of 888, across 7 files
  • run detected project setup commandsin 34 of 888, across 6 files
  • wrap commit body at 72 charactersin 32 of 888, across 25 files
  • split unrelated changes into separate commitsin 32 of 888, across 27 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • Run review after non-trivial code edits
  • Reject speculative risks and broad rewrites
  • Prefer the smallest fix at the correct boundary
  • Inspect the current scope for sibling instances
  • Keep reviewing until no actionable findings remain
  • Rerun focused tests if a fix changes code

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 328,083. 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.