C

caveman-review

by @juliusbrusseev
4.7(3)

Generates concise, actionable code review comments, one finding per line, including location, issue, and proposed fix.

code-reviewquality-assurancetestingautomationdevopsGitHub
Installation
npx skills add juliusbrussee/caveman --skill caveman-review
compare_arrows

Before / After Comparison

1
Before

Manually writing code review comments, organizing language to explain issues, worrying about the tone being too harsh, a PR takes 30-45 minutes to complete the review.

After

Automatically generate standardized, concise comments, directly pointing out line numbers, issues, and solutions, completing a full review in 10 minutes.

SKILL.md

caveman-review

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. Weekly Installs13.6KRepositoryjuliusbrussee/cavemanGitHub Stars24.5KFirst Seen5 days agoSecurity AuditsGen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykWarnInstalled oncursor10.5Kgithub-copilot10.2Kopencode9.0Kcodex8.8Kcline8.5Kantigravity8.5K

User Reviews (0)

Write a Review

Effect
Usability
Docs
Compatibility

No reviews yet

Statistics

Installs96.0K
Rating4.7 / 5.0
Version
Updated2026年5月23日
Comparisons1

User Rating

4.7(3)
5
67%
4
33%
3
0%
2
0%
1
0%

Rate this Skill

0.0

Compatible Platforms

🔧Claude Code

Timeline

Created2026年4月14日
Last Updated2026年5月23日