Review
Force an adversarial review — spawns smith in a fresh context to hunt flaws in the current changes. Use before merging, after finishing a feature, or when the user says "review this" or "check my work".From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add vidit19sharma/neogents --skill 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
- 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.
SKILL.md
1.5 KB, 302 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
/neo:review — summon smith
Changes in scope: !git diff --stat HEAD 2>/dev/null | tail -5 || echo "not a git repo — review working tree by file list"
Steps
-
Scope: default = all uncommitted changes (
git diff HEAD+ untracked files). If the user named a branch, commit range, or files, use that instead. If the tree is clean and no scope was given, ask what to review. -
Spawn smith (fresh context — no bias toward code written this session). The 6-section contract. CONTEXT: the diff scope (file list + how to view it:
git diff HEAD -- <paths>), what the change was SUPPOSED to do (one paragraph — from the session, the plan artifact, or ask the user), and the project's test command from CLAUDE.md. EXPECTED OUTCOME: verdict block — APPROVE or BLOCK, blocking findings with file:line and evidence, replication check across the codebase, what was verified by execution, what was NOT examined. -
Relay honestly: verdict verbatim. BLOCK findings → offer to fix (trinity for mechanical fixes, main thread for judgment calls). Never soften a BLOCK into "minor notes".
-
Re-review after fixes: send smith the same context plus what changed (continue the session if possible) — a fix pass without re-review is an unverified fix.
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.