skill
Caveman Review
نبذة
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.
التثبيت
شغل هذا الأمر
npx skills add juliusbrussee/cavemanيعمل مع
خطوات التثبيت
Install with `npx skills add juliusbrussee/caveman`, or clone the repository and copy the `skills/caveman-review` folder into your Claude skills directory.
أسئلة شائعة
كيف أثبت Caveman Review؟
شغل هذا الأمر في الطرفية:
npx skills add juliusbrussee/cavemanمع أي أدوات ذكاء اصطناعي تعمل Caveman Review؟
تعمل مع claude_app، claude_code، claude_api، cursor، codex، windsurf، cline، zed.
من طور Caveman Review؟
طورها juliusbrussee.
هل Caveman Review مجانية؟
نعم، يمكنك استخدامها مجانا.
git clone https://github.com/anthropics/skills && cp -r skills/skills/claude-api ~/.claude/skills/
npx skills add mattpocock/skills
npx skills add mattpocock/skills
npx skills add mattpocock/skills
npx skills add mattpocock/skills
npx skills add microsoft/azure-skills
افحص قبل التثبيت
شغل أي مصدر عبر فحوصاتنا - الظهور في الذكاء الاصطناعي والأمان والأداء واكتشاف التقنيات.
فحص أمني تلقائي للموقع
الأمان
محلل سرعة الصفحة
الأداء
اختبار جودة المحتوى العربي بالذكاء الاصطناعي
جودة المحتوى
مختبر وكلاء الذكاء الاصطناعي
اختبار الذكاء الاصطناعي
كاشف منصة الموقع
الترحيل
تدقيق الظهور في محركات الذكاء الاصطناعي
الظهور في الذكاء الاصطناعي
مولد ملف llms.txt
الظهور في الذكاء الاصطناعي
مقياس سهولة القراءة بالعربية
جودة المحتوى
منشئ البيانات المنظمة
الظهور في الذكاء الاصطناعي
حاسبة تكاليف الذكاء الاصطناعي
اختبار الذكاء الاصطناعي
محلل العناوين العربية
جودة المحتوى