Back

Caveman Review

Coding426.6K installs

What it does

Compressed code review - one line per finding with location, problem and fix. Use for /caveman-review, "review this PR", or "review the diff".

Install

npx skills add https://github.com/juliusbrussee/caveman --skill caveman-review

Website

www.skills.sh/juliusbrussee/caveman/caveman-review

Details

From the skill’s SKILL.md or README, by its authors. View the original

Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.

Rules

Format: L: . . β€” or :L: ... when reviewing multi-file diffs.

Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):

  • πŸ”΄ bug: β€” broken behavior, will cause incident
  • 🟑 risk: β€” works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)
  • πŸ”΅ nit: β€” style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore
  • ❓ q: β€” genuine question, not a suggestion

Drop:

  • I noticed that..., It seems like..., You might want to consider...
  • This is just a suggestion but... β€” use nit: instead
  • Great work!, Looks good overall but... β€” say it once at the top, not per comment
  • Restating what the line does β€” the reviewer can read the diff
  • Hedging (perhaps, maybe, I think) β€” 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.

βœ… L42: πŸ”΄ 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.

βœ… L88-140: πŸ”΅ 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.

βœ… 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 β€” 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.

See all
  • Coding

    Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.

    npx skills add https://github.com/mattpocock/skills --skill improve-codebase-architecture
    1.2M installs
  • Coding

    React and Next.js performance optimization guidelines from Vercel Engineering. This skill should be used when writing, reviewing, or refactoring React/Next.js code to ensure optimal performance patterns. Triggers on tasks involving React components, Next.js pages, data…

    npx skills add https://github.com/vercel-labs/agent-skills --skill vercel-react-best-practices
    881K installs
  • Coding

    Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel…

    npx skills add https://github.com/mattpocock/skills --skill code-review
    866.7K installs
  • Coding

    Use when you need to resolve an in-progress git merge/rebase conflict.

    npx skills add https://github.com/mattpocock/skills --skill resolving-merge-conflicts
    551.2K installs

Skills are shared by members and not reviewed by us. Read a skill’s code before you install it.