JunHo Kim
25256ec417
Extracted and cleaned up from a prior WSL/Windows agent-memory setup. Contains only project-agnostic content: - Claude_Memory/: feedback rules, user profile, reusable reference docs, session scratch space (claude_info/, claude_log/), mirrored skill defs - caveman/: ultra-compressed communication mode skill + subcommands - html-slide-deck/: self-contained HTML slide deck builder skill Project-specific knowledge (previously mixed in) was moved out to each project's own repository as part of this cleanup.
55 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
Executable File
55 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
Executable File
---
|
|
name: caveman-review
|
|
description: >
|
|
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.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
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. |