review-followup
Review Follow-Up
Start from the review comment, not from a desire to justify more work. The first job is to decide whether the review is supported by the code and requirements. Only after that should you ask why it was missed and whether any broader follow-up is warranted.
This skill is intentionally cautious. Many issues are easier to notice in review than during implementation. Do not over-rotate from "the review is valid" to "the codebase needs refactoring."
Workflow
- Anchor the review in the actual change.
- Read the review comment, relevant diff or commit, and the surrounding code.
- Read affected tests or docs when they change the meaning of the review.
- Separate reviewer preference from correctness, clarity, maintainability, or contract issues.
- Assess validity first.
- Classify each review item as:
ValidPartially validNot supported
- Explain the classification with concrete evidence from the code, behavior, tests, or stated requirements.
More from sjunepark/custom-skills
summarize
Use the steipete/summarize CLI to summarize URLs, local files, stdin, YouTube links, podcasts, and media with LLM models. Trigger when users ask to install or run summarize, configure model/provider API keys, tune output flags (length/language/json/extract/slides), set defaults in ~/.summarize/config.json, or troubleshoot summarize CLI errors.
42skills-cli
Operate the skills CLI to discover, install, list, update, remove, and initialize skills for Codex, Claude Code, and Pi. Use when users ask to manage skills from skills.sh, restore from lock files, sync skills from node_modules, or troubleshoot agent/installation scope (project vs global).
37post-implementation-review
Manually review already-implemented code for design flaws, abstraction issues, structural problems, or refactors that only became clear in real code. Use only when the user explicitly asks for a post-implementation review, explicitly asks whether recent implementation work revealed design or structure problems, or explicitly wants refactor recommendations after the code exists. Do not auto-trigger for ordinary implementation, debugging, explanation, or generic code review requests. Prefer embedded snippets with file-path comments over editor-oriented file and line references. Treat findings as signals about code shape and quality; prioritize root-cause design, ownership, abstraction, and organization improvements, including broad refactors when warranted, over bandage fixes such as tiny helper extractions or local polish.
30architecture-md-writer
Create, update, review, and split ARCHITECTURE.md files that explain a codebase's shape, major components, runtime flow, code map, and important invariants. Use when a repository lacks architecture docs, an existing ARCHITECTURE.md is stale or too detailed, a subsystem needs its own nested ARCHITECTURE.md, or a root architecture doc should link to deeper module architecture docs.
27agents-md-writer
Create, edit, review, and improve AGENTS.md files for repositories used by agentic coding tools with concise, actionable instructions and correct precedence behavior. Use whenever AGENTS.md content is being changed, including updating existing guidance, drafting a new AGENTS.md, migrating legacy instruction files, defining nested overrides in monorepos, or debugging why tools load the wrong guidance.
26source-investigator
Investigate external libraries, frameworks, and unfamiliar repositories by cloning the exact repo into a project-local temp workspace, ignoring that workspace in git, and delegating code reading to focused subagents so the main thread stays clean. Use whenever docs are incomplete, version-specific behavior matters, you need to learn how a codebase works, or exploring lots of source inline would pollute the main context.
24