laimis91/assistant-framework/skills/assistant-review/SKILL.md
assistant-review
Review code, fix actionable findings, and run one fresh re-review. Use for explicit code review or the workflow Review phase; QA runs only when required.
- Source repository stars
- 7
- Declared platforms
- 0
- Static risk flags
- 1
- Last source update
- 2026-08-04
- Source checked
- 2026-08-04
Decision brief
What it does—and where it fits
Review code, fix actionable findings, and run one fresh re-review. Use for explicit code review or the workflow Review phase; QA runs only when required.
Not for
- Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
- Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.
Compatibility matrix
Platform support, with evidence labels
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
Inspect first. Install second.
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/laimis91/assistant-framework --skill "skills/assistant-review"Inspect the Agent Skill "assistant-review" from https://github.com/laimis91/assistant-framework/blob/e85fbadd83b022d9644bbe51b11784cf2e2dfd72/skills/assistant-review/SKILL.md at commit e85fbadd83b022d9644bbe51b11784cf2e2dfd72. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
What the source asks the agent to do
- 01
Review Modes
Use the smallest applicable combination: spec, regression, test, maintainability, bugfix evidence, semantic contract, behavioral contract, agentic loop safety, and security. Contract and loop modes are enabled by the three entry flags; security-sensitive surfaces route to assist…
Use the smallest applicable combination: spec, regression, test, maintainability, bugfix evidence, semantic contract, behavioral contract, agentic loop safety, and security. Contract and loop modes are enabled by the th…Findings include severity (must-fix, should-fix, or nit), file/line evidence, concrete impact, smallest useful fix, and evidence-calibrated confidence. Speculative concerns remain non-blocking Observations.QA evaluation runs after code-review/build evidence and only when qaevaluationmode=required. Load references/qa-evaluation-loop.md at that later boundary. Load references/domain-rubrics.md only when acceptance criteria,… - 02
Company-Safe Review Rules
Prefer local diffs and repo-native checks. Do not require external scanners, remote review, or unapproved installs; redact secrets and proprietary data. Offer local/manual equivalents when policy blocks an external scan.
Prefer local diffs and repo-native checks. Do not require external scanners, remote review, or unapproved installs; redact secrets and proprietary data. Offer local/manual equivalents when policy blocks an external scan. - 03
Mandatory Review Checklists
The fresh Reviewer context bundle points to references/review-checklists.md and supplies only the applicable checklist sections. Checklist headings alone are not evidence; each selected area produces findings or an explicit "no concrete risk found" check.
Agentic loop flag - Agentic Loop Safety Checklist - agenticloopsafetychecks.Behavioral flag - Behavioral Contract Review Checklist - behavioralcontractchecks.Semantic flag - Semantic Contract Review Checklist - semanticcontractchecks. - 04
Review Loop Routing
After entry fields are resolved, load references/review-loop.md before the first REVIEW step. It is the only immediately mandatory first-review reference in orchestrator context and owns REVIEW - EVALUATE - FIX - VALIDATE, fresh bundle construction, drift/pivot handling, and the…
After entry fields are resolved, load references/review-loop.md before the first REVIEW step. It is the only immediately mandatory first-review reference in orchestrator context and owns REVIEW - EVALUATE - FIX - VALIDA…Run QA only when qaevaluationmode=required. The loop routes to references/qa-evaluation-loop.md after build/test and code-review evidence exist; QA evaluates acceptance and scoped quality, and does not replace code revi… - 05
Review Finding Rule Distillation
At the end of review, load references/review-finding-permanent-rule.md for every blocker or must-fix finding. Classify each as oneofffix, permanentrulecandidate, or noaction. Promote only recurring process gaps, fake-pass eval gaps, missing contracts, missing checklists, or high…
At the end of review, load references/review-finding-permanent-rule.md for every blocker or must-fix finding. Classify each as oneofffix, permanentrulecandidate, or noaction. Promote only recurring process gaps, fake-pa…
Permission review
Static risk signals and limitations
Reads files
The documentation asks the agent to read local files, directories, or repositories.
If a selector is missing or invalid, apply `load_full_authoritative_file`: load the full named canonical file, validate the applicable rules, and record any recovery before proceeding.Evidence record
Why each signal appears
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 88/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 7 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Provenance and original SKILL.md
- Repository
- laimis91/assistant-framework
- Skill path
- skills/assistant-review/SKILL.md
- Commit
- e85fbadd83b022d9644bbe51b11784cf2e2dfd72
- License
- MIT
- Collected
- 2026-08-04
- Default branch
- main
View the original SKILL.md
Autonomous Review And QA Evaluation
Contracts
Canonical input, output, phase-gate, and handoff schemas remain authoritative at their enforcement points. Read contracts/index.yaml first; do not load every contract at entry.
entry: loadcontracts/input.yamlreview-entry fields selected byreview-entry-fieldsincontracts/index.yaml.current_round: load the active round step fromcontracts/phase-gates.yamlat each transition.selected_handoff: select the compact dispatch pointer fromcontracts/handoffs.yamlbefore Reviewer or QAEvaluator dispatch.reviewer_context: resolve the fresh bounded Reviewer bundle only when a review pass begins.return_validation: select the canonical return pointer only after a worker/direct-fallback result exists.completion: load the applicablecontracts/output.yamlartifacts at completion, before the final review exit.
Migration note: assistant-review contracts are v3. Applicable direct-user,
AGENTS.md, and active-skill instructions trigger required Reviewer and QA
roles; record their provenance and covered work in subagent_trigger_scope
without a second permission question. Explicit opt-out, real unavailability,
and exact active policy blocks retain direct fallback. Every Reviewer return and
final summary now requires a non-empty reviewed_scope string array so workflow
v4 can consume the producer packet without deriving or guessing its boundary.
Selectors use unique id, canonical path, exact section/key, and explicit or allowed runtime names. Entry declares no immediate principles, checklist, or rubric references.
If a selector is missing or invalid, apply load_full_authoritative_file: load the full named canonical file, validate the applicable rules, and record any recovery before proceeding.
Run the bounded review policy, keep intermediate results inside the loop, and present one final evidence-calibrated result. Required QA follows build/test and code-review evidence.
Goal
Find evidence-backed defects, regressions, and test gaps; fix them in review-fix mode; and return one policy-safe result without implying proof of correctness. Required QA independently evaluates acceptance, evidence, scoped quality, progression, and readiness.
Success Criteria
- Scope, mode, and review material are resolved before the loop.
- Findings are severity-ranked with evidence and confidence.
- Every Reviewer return names the non-empty
reviewed_scopeactually inspected. - Every review applies the SOLID, KISS, DRY, YAGNI, and readability lens from
references/review-principles.md. - In review-fix mode, must-fix and should-fix findings are addressed or explicitly deferred.
- Validation and a fresh review follow fixes.
- QA evaluation runs after code-review/build evidence when
qa_evaluation_mode=required, returns score progression and a final acceptance verdict, and does not replace code-reviewer. - QA required positive triggers: explicit QA/acceptance evaluation request, accepted Done Contract, harness-capable acceptance scope, domain-scored scope, or scoped UI/visual/product/UX/docs/DX acceptance.
- QA non-triggers: template labels/placeholders, generic acceptance criteria labels, optional/not_required reasons, delegation/source-changing work alone, and ordinary medium+ code-review-only/source-changing work.
- QA evaluation loads
references/domain-rubrics.mdonly whendomain_context, explicitrubric_refs, or subjective/UI/visual/product/UX/docs/DX/domain acceptance criteria require scoped domain-quality scoring.
Constraints
- Default to audit mode when the user asks to provide, report, list, or summarize findings.
- Do not emit intermediate review summaries; present one final summary after loop exit.
- Use concrete risk categories for refactor-related findings.
- Treat clean-code principles as evidence lenses, not acronym-driven style rules.
- Keep QA evaluation separate from code review: QA focuses on acceptance criteria, Done Contract, verification evidence, UI/visual/product/UX/docs/DX/domain quality, score progression, and final result. Code Reviewer continues to own code defects, security, architecture, and test-coverage review.
Entry
Prefer explicit files/content/diff, then uncommitted changes, then the active task journal or packet, then requested current-file audit. Ask only when no review material can be determined.
A standalone review this with no carried workflow evidence performs Spec Review against the user request and user scope, records a PASS evidence pointer before Reviewer dispatch, and blocks dispatch on FAIL until the scope mismatch is fixed and Spec Review passes. Standalone review does not require a task journal; task_journal_path remains optional.
A workflow-composed review consumes the carried Spec Review PASS pointer and carried current build/test evidence. After any source fix, every subsequent Reviewer dispatch requires real current passed build/test evidence; a not-applicable marker is invalid.
Review Modes
Use the smallest applicable combination: spec, regression, test, maintainability, bugfix evidence, semantic contract, behavioral contract, agentic loop safety, and security. Contract and loop modes are enabled by the three entry flags; security-sensitive surfaces route to assistant-security.
Findings include severity (must-fix, should-fix, or nit), file/line evidence, concrete impact, smallest useful fix, and evidence-calibrated confidence. Speculative concerns remain non-blocking Observations.
QA evaluation runs after code-review/build evidence and only when qa_evaluation_mode=required. Load references/qa-evaluation-loop.md at that later boundary. Load references/domain-rubrics.md only when acceptance criteria, Done Contract, domain_context, or explicit rubric_refs scope domain quality; selected_domain_rubrics/domain_quality_scores when scoped. Code Reviewer still owns code defects, security, architecture, and test coverage.
Company-Safe Review Rules
Prefer local diffs and repo-native checks. Do not require external scanners, remote review, or unapproved installs; redact secrets and proprietary data. Offer local/manual equivalents when policy blocks an external scan.
Mandatory Review Checklists
The fresh Reviewer context bundle points to references/review-checklists.md and supplies only the applicable checklist sections. Checklist headings alone are not evidence; each selected area produces findings or an explicit "no concrete risk found" check.
- Agentic loop flag -> Agentic Loop Safety Checklist ->
agentic_loop_safety_checks. - Behavioral flag -> Behavioral Contract Review Checklist ->
behavioral_contract_checks. - Semantic flag -> Semantic Contract Review Checklist ->
semantic_contract_checks.
Refactor-Related Findings
Use refactor-related findings only for concrete actionable risk. Allowed risk categories:
- correctness
- security
- unsafe change surface
- branching/responsibility growth
- hidden dependency/ownership
- brittle testing
- poor extension seam
- readability/maintainability drag
Every refactor-related finding MUST state the risk category, affected surface, evidence from the review material, and the smallest durable fix that addresses the risk within the normal finding text.
Use concrete risk framing instead of generic convention, style, cleanliness, or improvement language. Request broad cleanup only when a smaller durable fix cannot remove the risk.
Principle and Readability Lens
The fresh Reviewer bundle includes references/review-principles.md for the SOLID, KISS, DRY, YAGNI, and readability lens. Report a principle finding only when evidence shows concrete correctness, coupling, duplication, complexity, or maintainability risk.
For each principle/readability finding, include the violated lens, affected surface, concrete evidence, risk category, and smallest durable fix. Do not report acronym-only findings such as "violates SOLID" without naming the observed behavior and the user-facing or maintainer risk.
Review Loop Routing
After entry fields are resolved, load references/review-loop.md before the first REVIEW step. It is the only immediately mandatory first-review reference in orchestrator context and owns REVIEW -> EVALUATE -> FIX -> VALIDATE, fresh bundle construction, drift/pivot handling, and the max 10 rounds limit. Principles, applicable checklist sections, and rubric guidance belong to the fresh Reviewer worker bundle created only when a review pass begins; they are not assistant-review entry dependencies.
Run QA only when qa_evaluation_mode=required. The loop routes to references/qa-evaluation-loop.md after build/test and code-review evidence exist; QA evaluates acceptance and scoped quality, and does not replace code review.
Exit: Present Final Result
Present one summary using contracts/output.yaml. For no findings, say: "No material findings within the reviewed scope and available evidence." CLEAN remains a machine enum, not proof of correctness.
Rules
- Keep round results internal and present one final summary.
- Use a fresh Reviewer bundle each medium+ round; direct fallback uses the same isolated bundle without claiming a subagent dispatch.
- Previously fixed items are not re-reported; findings remain evidence-backed.
Output
Return reviewed scope, rounds/result, evidence-backed findings and fixes, verification, applicable bugfix/agentic/behavioral/semantic checks, required QA result, and residual risk. contracts/output.yaml owns the exact schema.
Stop Rules
- Audit mode stops after one review pass. Report findings without edits.
- The normal review-fix path is an initial review, fixes and validation, then one fresh re-review; stop after a no-finding pass unless new evidence justifies another round.
- Before round 3+, require
additional_round_reasonbacked by changed files, an unresolved finding, validation failure, regression/drift, or a changed hypothesis. Score below threshold alone is insufficient. - The hard max 10 rounds remains: round 10 is terminal and round 11 never starts.
- Stop and report a blocker if required review material is unavailable or empty.
Drift detection (medium+ scope)
Compare medium+ rounds using references/score-tracking.md. Drift, regression,
stagnation, or pivot evidence returns pivot_restart_signal; the orchestrator records pivot_restart_decision and applies the round 3+ evidence gate before another pass.
Review Finding Rule Distillation
At the end of review, load references/review-finding-permanent-rule.md for every blocker or must-fix finding. Classify each as one_off_fix, permanent_rule_candidate, or no_action. Promote only recurring process gaps, fake-pass eval gaps, missing contracts, missing checklists, or high-impact repeatable failure modes; do not promote style nits or one-off file-specific issues into broad rules.
Alternatives
Compare before choosing
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.
ruvnet/RuView
github-code-review
Comprehensive GitHub code review with AI-powered swarm coordination
dotnet/skills
grade-tests
Grades a specified set of test methods individually and produces a concise table mapping each test (fully-qualified name) to a letter grade (A–F), a score band, and a one-line note — designed to be posted as a PR comment. Use when the caller wants per-test feedback on a curated list of methods (for example, the new or modified tests in a pull request), not a suite-wide audit. Polyglot: .NET, Python, TS/JS, Java, Go, Ruby, Rust, Swift, Kotlin, PowerShell, C++. Input is a list of test methods (or
evanca/flutter-ai-rules
code-review
Use when asked to review a PR, MR, branch, or diff, audit changed files, or check code quality.