skill
Caveman Review
Compressed code review - one line per finding with location, problem and fix. Use for /caveman-review, "review this PR", or "review the diff".
About
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.
Install
Run this command
npx skills add juliusbrussee/cavemanWorks with
Manual steps
Install with `npx skills add juliusbrussee/caveman`, or clone the repository and copy the `skills/caveman-review` folder into your Claude skills directory.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Caveman Review skill?
Compressed code review - one line per finding with location, problem and fix. Use for /caveman-review, "review this PR", or "review the diff".
How do I install Caveman Review?
Run this in your terminal:
npx skills add juliusbrussee/cavemanWhich AI tools does Caveman Review work with?
It works with claude_app, claude_code, claude_api, cursor, codex, windsurf, cline, zed.
Who made Caveman Review?
juliusbrussee.
Is Caveman Review free?
Yes, it is free to use.
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
Audit before you install
Run any source through our checks - AI visibility, security, performance, and stack detection.
Automated Web Security Scan
security
PageSpeed Analyzer
performance
AI Content Quality Test
arabic content
AI Agent / MCP Server Tester
ai testing
Site Stack Detector
migration
AI SEO / AEO / GEO Audit
ai visibility
llms.txt Generator
ai visibility
Readability Score
arabic content
Schema / JSON-LD Builder
ai visibility
AI Cost Calculator
ai testing
Headline Analyzer
arabic content