Index of every page on this site: llms.txt
All skills
juliusbrussee avatar

/caveman-review

@bad48a0
by Julius Brusseejuliusbrussee/caveman114k stars
6,594
Run it yourself

Compressed code review - one line per finding with location, problem and fix. Use for /caveman-review, "review this PR", or "review the diff".

Use this Skill: https://skilld.dev/gh/juliusbrussee/caveman/caveman-review

Nothing lands on disk. Nothing to clean up.

Fork this Skill

Edit a local copy. It keeps the author and licence.

SKILL.md

≈40 tokens for metadata: the name and description. ≈594 when used: this file. ≈303 more on demand in 1 file.

Description uses 2.0% of example budget

Before choosing a Skill, your Agent reads its name and description. All available Skills share that space.

  • A shorter description leaves more room for other Skills. This entry exceeds our 1% size suggestion.

In our Claude Code example, all Skill names and descriptions share 8,000 characters. This Skill uses ≈159 characters, or 2.0%.

The 1% threshold is a size suggestion. Longer descriptions can still fit.

Your model, settings, and other Skills decide how much text your Agent can read.

Example settings and source

The example uses a 200k-token context and default Claude Code settings. The count includes the name, description, separators, and when_to_use when present. Codex also counts local file paths.

Skit's source and limits: Codex 0.160.1, Claude Code 2.1.292.

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

Rules

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

Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):

  • 🔴 bug: — broken behavior, will cause incident
  • 🟡 risk: — works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)
  • 🔵 nit: — style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore
  • ❓ q: — genuine question, not a suggestion

Drop:

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

✅ L42: 🔴 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."

✅ L88-140: 🔵 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."

✅ 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 — 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.

Source: SKILL.md on GitHub

No rule matched.

skilld matched fixed text patterns in SKILL.md and file names. Patterns miss obfuscated code.

skilld run checks every file with the same patterns. It asks for approval before it loads a Skill with a behavior marked Needs approval.

1 warning1mo4 checks · Risk SAFE
  • Gen Agent Trust Hub1mo

    The skill is designed to format code review comments into a terse, one-line format. It operates by reviewing external code diffs, which constitutes an indirect prompt injection surface. However, the skill only generates text output and does not possess capabilities to execute code, access the network, or modify the filesystem, resulting in a low risk profile.

  • Socket1mo

    No alerts

  • Snyk1mo

    Risk: MEDIUM · 1 issue

  • ZeroLeaks6mo

    Score: 93/100 · 2 sections analyzed

Signed by skilld at bad48a0. This ties the file your Agent reads to that commit on GitHub. It does not review the instructions.

Last checked against GitHub last week.

Activeupdated 2 months ago

README badge

README badge for juliusbrussee/caveman/caveman-review