Catalog
JuliusBrussee/caveman-review

JuliusBrussee

caveman-review

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

NewUpdated Sep 9, 2026

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.

Files2
2 files · 2.6 KB

Select a file to preview

Overall Score

88/100

Grade

A

Excellent

Grades are signals, not a certification. Always review a skill yourself before use.

Safety

95

Quality

88

Clarity

90

Completeness

78

Summary

A code review skill that generates compressed, one-line review comments with strict formatting (location, severity, problem, fix). The skill guides AI agents to drop verbose hedging and throat-clearing, keep exact line numbers and symbol names, and auto-expand clarity only for security findings, architectural decisions, and onboarding contexts. Output-only — does not approve/request changes or execute linters.

Detected Capabilities

code analysiscomment generationdiff parsingtext formatting

Trigger Keywords

Phrases that agents use to match this skill to user intent.

caveman reviewterse code reviewone-line findingspr commentsseverity emojicompress reviewactionable feedback

Use Cases

  • Generate terse pull request review comments
  • Create actionable one-line code findings
  • Review diffs with severity classification
  • Enforce concise code review style
  • Output review-ready comments without approval logic

Quality Notes

  • Clear format specification with regex-like syntax (`L<line>: <problem>. <fix>.`) allows agent to produce consistent output
  • Concrete examples show both ❌ bad (verbose) and ✅ good (terse) patterns, making the style unambiguous
  • Severity taxonomy (🔴 bug, 🟡 risk, 🔵 nit, ❓ q) is well-defined and includes guidance on when each applies
  • Auto-clarity exception ('drop terse mode for security findings') provides guardrail for complex contexts without disrupting primary use case
  • Explicit boundaries state what the skill does NOT do (approve, request changes, run linters), preventing scope creep
  • Supporting README.md reinforces key concepts and provides invocation triggers, improving discoverability
  • The 'Drop' and 'Keep' lists are prescriptive enough that an agent can reliably filter its output
  • Tone is direct and avoids meta-discussion, modeling the terse style the skill teaches
Model: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001Analyzed: Sep 9, 2026

Reviews

Add this skill to your library to leave a review.

No reviews yet

Be the first to share your experience.

Version History

  1. v2.0

    Contract changed: description

    ✦ AINarrowed activation triggers: removes auto-activation on PR reviews and trims invocation phrases.

    triggering2026-09-09

    LATEST
  2. v1.0

    2026-08-17

    View This VersionInitial version

Use JuliusBrussee/caveman-review in your dev environment

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...