caveman-review
簡潔で実行可能なコードレビューコメントを生成します。1行につき1つの指摘で、場所、問題、修正案を含みます。
npx skills add juliusbrussee/caveman --skill caveman-reviewBefore / After 効果比較
1 组手動でコードレビューコメントを作成し、問題を説明するために言葉を整理し、口調が厳しくなりすぎないか心配し、1つのPRのレビューに30〜45分かかります。
標準化された簡潔なコメントを自動生成し、行番号、問題、および修正案を直接指摘し、10分で完全なレビューを完了します。
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
ユーザーレビュー (0)
レビューを書く
レビューなし
統計データ
ユーザー評価
この Skill を評価