C

caveman-review

by @juliusbrusseev
4.7(3)

生成简洁可执行的代码审查评论,一行一个发现,包含位置、问题和修复方案

code-reviewquality-assurancetestingautomationdevopsGitHub
安装方式
npx skills add juliusbrussee/caveman --skill caveman-review
compare_arrows

Before / After 效果对比

1
使用前

手动编写代码审查评论,组织语言说明问题,担心语气过于生硬,一个PR需要30-45分钟完成审查

使用后

自动生成标准化的简洁评论,直接指出行号、问题和修复方案,10分钟完成完整审查

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

用户评价 (0)

发表评价

效果
易用性
文档
兼容性

暂无评价

统计数据

安装量96.0K
评分4.7 / 5.0
版本
更新日期2026年5月23日
对比案例1 组

用户评分

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

为此 Skill 评分

0.0

兼容平台

🔧Claude Code

时间线

创建2026年4月14日
最后更新2026年5月23日