免费在 GitHub 公开

caveman-review

Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

skillmds/skillmd

查看安装方法

包含的文件（2）

SKILL.md2.7 KB
README.md1.2 KB

SKILL.md（原文）

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问，或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

同一仓库的技能

academic-pptx

免费

Use this skill whenever the user wants to create or improve a presentation for an academic context — conference papers, seminar talks, thesis defenses, grant briefings, lab meetings, invited lectures, or any presentation where the audience will evaluate reasoning and evidence. Triggers include: 'conference talk', 'seminar slides', 'thesis defense', 'research presentation', 'academic deck', 'academic presentation'. Also triggers when the user asks to 'make slides' in combination with academic content (e.g., 'make slides for my paper on X', 'create a presentation for my dissertation defense', 'build a deck for my grant proposal'). This skill governs CONTENT and STRUCTURE decisions. For the technical work of creating or editing the .pptx file itself, also read the pptx SKILL.md.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。