Focus Code Skill Marketplace

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.

Skill Introduction

Overview

Core value

Turns reusable Debugging know-how into an installable skill, helping users complete github, community, ai, anthropic work faster.

Target users

Developers, testers, and maintainers who handle Debugging tasks in Focus Code.
Teams that already trust workflows or content from JuliusBrussee.
Users who want standardized prompts, steps, or conventions instead of repeating setup work.

Best practices

Read the skill content first to confirm required inputs, expected outputs, and dependencies.
Try it on a small task before relying on it for critical work.
Add project-specific constraints such as coding style, target platform, test expectations, and delivery format.
For external sources, verify the source link, version, and recent maintenance activity.

Best use cases

Tasks related to github, community, ai, anthropic that need a reusable execution flow.
Converting a community repo, team convention, or personal workflow into day-to-day assistance.
Starting from a proven skill instead of writing prompts or procedures from scratch.

Limits and boundaries

Results depend on the quality of the original skill content and may need human correction.
It does not replace code review, tests, security review, or professional judgment.
External tools, APIs, account permissions, and local dependencies still need separate setup.

Differentiation

Structured around Debugging, making it easier to discover and reuse than loose prompt snippets.
Marked as GitHub, which helps users judge trust and maintenance expectations.
Keeps the original source link available for repository, documentation, or discussion follow-up.
Tagged with github, community, ai, anthropic, so it can be filtered by concrete task intent.

Detail Preview

SKILL.md

Primary filemarkdown3 KB

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.