Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

review

Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/PRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md3.9 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:

  • Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
  • Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?

Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.

The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing.

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.

Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.

Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

  1. Issue references in the commit messages (#123, Closes #45, GitLab !67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in docs/agents/issue-tracker.md.
  2. A path the user passed as an argument.
  3. A PRD/spec file under docs/, specs/, or .scratch/ matching the branch name or feature.
  4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".

3. Identify the standards sources

Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.

4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel

Send a single message with two Agent tool calls. Use the general-purpose subagent for both.

Standards sub-agent prompt — include:

  • The full diff command and commit list.
  • The list of standards-source files you found in step 3.
  • The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — every place the diff violates a documented standard. Cite the standard (file + the rule). Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."

Spec sub-agent prompt — include:

  • The diff command and commit list.
  • The path or fetched contents of the spec.
  • The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words."

If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.

5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under ## Standards and ## Spec headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do not merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see Why two axes).

End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue within each axis (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.

Why two axes

A change can pass one axis and fail the other:

  • Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → Standards pass, Spec fail.
  • Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → Spec pass, Standards fail.

Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Measure CI churn cost for a pull request: how many commits and how many CI-compute seconds were burned on avoidable "fix the CI" push rounds. Use when you want to understand the efficiency cost of a PR's iteration cycle, get actionable pre-push check suggestions, or include a churn summary in a pipeline report. Triggers: "ci churn", "how much CI did we burn", "avoidable commits", "ci efficiency", "wasted CI time", "churn report", "/ci-churn". Called automatically by /fp-drift at pipeline close.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

gaia-research/gaia-skill-tree23Updated Oct 23, 2026

Produce the rendered evidence a human-gated frontend PR owes its reviewer: capture each changed surface (plus the before state for anything modified, plus mobile width), then generate one self-contained local HTML page the founder can open and review without checking anything out. Use when a PR is gated by the "Frontend changes are HUMAN-GATED" section of CLAUDE.md, or when the user says "/design-gate", "screenshot evidence for this PR", "prep this for founder review", "build the design evidence page", "what does this look like before and after". The page comes from a template script, not hand-written markup. Output is session-local and never committed. Do NOT use for non-gated changes: typo/grammar/factual fixes in an unchanged block, dead link targets, alt/ARIA fixes with no visual change, cache-bust bumps, or refactors with no rendered diff.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

gaia-research/gaia-skill-tree23Updated Oct 23, 2026

One-fix-at-a-time, approval-gated design fix recovery. Given a checklist of fixes (handover doc, CHECKLIST.md, or inline list), applies each individually, presents a diff, and waits for an explicit APPROVE / REJECT / NO CHANGES decision before committing. Trigger phrases: /design-iteration, "go through the checklist one by one", "fix these one at a time", "bucket recovery", "design fix pass".

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

gaia-research/gaia-skill-tree23Updated Oct 23, 2026

Playbook for correcting a named skill's star level to match its computed Trust Magnitude grade, with an independent post-calibration verification pass and a CLI-logged timeline event (never hand-written). Use when: recalibrating a skill's level, fixing a stale or drifted star rating, running a batch of `gaia dev calibrate` corrections, or confirming a past calibration actually landed. Triggers: "calibrate <skill>", "recalibrate the trust magnitude backlog", "promote/demote <skill> to N stars", "why is <skill> still N stars", "verify a calibration actually landed", "Hall of Heroes ranking is wrong".

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

gaia-research/gaia-skill-tree23Updated Oct 23, 2026

Close out a completed EPIC / sprint end-to-end: author a fact-verified meta-post announcing what shipped, archive the EPIC's handovers, snapshot orchestrator memory, gate the integration→main merge on CI-green + explicit human go, drive the version bump (merge-commit conventions that auto-sync classifies), and verify the release reached the registry/PyPI. Use when the user says "close out EPIC <n>", "wrap up the sprint", "ship the meta shift", "/epic-close", or asks to finalize an integration branch that is ready to merge to main. Generalizes the EPIC 1002 (Yggdrasil II) close-out. This skill orchestrates — it authors founder docs directly (superadmin) and delegates code/regen to workers; it NEVER merges to main without the human gate.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

gaia-research/gaia-skill-tree23Updated Oct 23, 2026

Run this skill for Phase 3 of the evidence verification pipeline — the adversarial audit step. Use when you need to check the evidence data lake for bad data before ingestion: dead links, wrong URL formats (tree/ vs blob/), subjective wording ("elite", "high-quality"), stale migration notes, benchmark catalog misuse/vendor-claim leakage, or skills whose star evidence conflicts with classified evidence level. Triggers on phrases like: "audit the data lake", "adversarial check", "ev-adversarial-audit", "check for noise in evidence", "flag bad evidence", "run the audit phase", "quality check the by-type files", or any reference to Phase 3 of the pipeline.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

gaia-research/gaia-skill-tree23Updated Oct 23, 2026

See all skills by gaia-research

Report a problem with this skill