review-fix
Read the latest code review, plan fixes for all findings, then execute the fixes — all in one command. Produces a dated plan and execution log in .reviews/.
Best use case
review-fix is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Read the latest code review, plan fixes for all findings, then execute the fixes — all in one command. Produces a dated plan and execution log in .reviews/.
Teams using review-fix should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/review-fix/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How review-fix Compares
| Feature / Agent | review-fix | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Read the latest code review, plan fixes for all findings, then execute the fixes — all in one command. Produces a dated plan and execution log in .reviews/.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
SKILL.md Source
# Review Fix — Plan & Execute from Last Review
Read the most recent `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review.md`, plan fixes for all findings
grouped by priority, then execute every planned fix with atomic commits. Produces
two artifacts: a **review-plan** and a **review-execution** log.
## Instructions
### Phase 0 — Find the Latest Review
1. Glob for `.reviews/*-review.md` and pick the most recent file by date.
2. Read the full review file. Parse every finding into a list of
`{ severity, reviewer, file, line, description }` entries.
3. If no review file exists, tell the user to run `/code-review` first and stop.
### Phase 1 — Plan
Spawn **4 parallel planning agents** (Task tool, `subagent_type: Plan`) that each
receive the full findings list filtered to their scope. Each agent returns a
structured list of fix actions.
#### Agent scopes
| Agent | Scope |
|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| **backend** | Findings from Tina, Marcus, Priya, Carlos, Oscar that touch `cachibot/` |
| **frontend** | Findings from Tina, Zoe, Luna that touch `frontend/src/` |
| **data** | Findings from Carlos (storage/db layer) |
| **tests** | Findings from Derek (test coverage gaps) |
> Findings that span multiple scopes go to every relevant agent.
Each planning agent must:
- Group related findings that can be fixed together (same file, same pattern).
- For each group, produce:
- **What**: one-line summary of the change
- **Files**: list of files to modify
- **How**: 2-3 sentence implementation approach
- **Severity**: highest severity in the group (Fix > Improve > Note)
- **Risk**: Low / Medium / High (does this change behavior or just style?)
- **Depends on**: other group IDs this group must wait for (if any)
- Order groups by: Fix severity first, then by dependency order.
- Skip any finding rated **Note** — notes are informational only.
After all 4 agents return, compile results into `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review-plan.md`:
```markdown
# Review Fix Plan — YYYY-MM-DD
**Source review:** `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review.md`
**Generated:** YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM
## Stats
| Severity | Findings | Planned groups |
|----------|----------|----------------|
| Fix | N | N |
| Improve | N | N |
| Note | N | (skipped) |
## Execution Waves
Wave 1 (no dependencies):
- [B1] Backend: <summary>
- [F1] Frontend: <summary>
Wave 2 (depends on wave 1):
- [B2] Backend: <summary> (depends on B1)
...
## Detailed Plan
### [B1] <Summary>
- **Severity:** Fix
- **Risk:** Low
- **Files:** `path/to/file.py`
- **How:** Description of the fix approach
- **Findings addressed:**
- Tina: `path/to/file.py:42` — original finding text
- Marcus: `path/to/file.py:50` — original finding text
```
Print the plan summary (wave count, group count, severity breakdown) to the user,
then **immediately proceed to Phase 2** without waiting for approval.
### Phase 2 — Execute
Read the plan file. Execute fixes **wave by wave** — all groups in a wave run in
parallel, but waves run sequentially (wave 2 waits for wave 1 to finish).
For each group, spawn a Task agent (`subagent_type: general-purpose`) with:
- The group's detailed plan (What, Files, How)
- The original finding text for context
- Instruction to read each file before editing
- Instruction to make the minimal change that addresses the finding
- Instruction to run `ruff check --fix` and `ruff format` on any modified Python file
- Instruction to run `npm run lint -- --fix` on any modified TypeScript file (from `frontend/`)
- Instruction to NOT create new files unless the plan explicitly says to
- Instruction to NOT add tests (Derek findings are tracked but test writing is a separate task)
After each wave completes:
1. Verify no lint errors remain (`ruff check cachibot/` and `cd frontend && npm run lint`).
2. If lint fails, spawn a fix agent for the failing files before continuing.
3. Stage all changed files and create one commit per wave:
```
Review fixes wave N: <comma-separated group IDs>
Addresses findings from YYYY-MM-DD code review.
Groups: [B1] summary, [F2] summary, ...
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
```
After all waves complete, write `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review-execution.md`:
```markdown
# Review Fix Execution — YYYY-MM-DD
**Plan:** `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review-plan.md`
**Source review:** `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review.md`
## Results
| Wave | Groups | Status | Commit |
|------|--------|---------|---------|
| 1 | B1, F1 | Done | abc1234 |
| 2 | B2 | Done | def5678 |
## Findings Addressed
| Severity | Planned | Fixed | Skipped | Reason |
|----------|---------|-------|---------|-----------------|
| Fix | N | N | N | |
| Improve | N | N | N | |
## Group Details
### [B1] <Summary> — Done
- **Commit:** abc1234
- **Files changed:** `path/to/file.py`
- **Findings fixed:**
- Tina: `path/to/file.py:42` — fixed
- Marcus: `path/to/file.py:50` — fixed
### [F1] <Summary> — Skipped
- **Reason:** File was recently refactored, finding no longer applies
- **Findings skipped:**
- Zoe: `frontend/src/Component.tsx:100` — N/A after refactor
## Remaining Work
- Derek's test coverage findings were not addressed (test writing is separate)
- N findings skipped due to: ...
```
### Phase 3 — Summary
Print a final summary to the user:
```
Review fix complete.
Waves executed: N
Commits created: N
Findings fixed: N / M planned (X Fix, Y Improve)
Skipped: N (reasons listed in execution log)
Plan: .reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review-plan.md
Execution: .reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review-execution.md
```
## Important Rules
- **Never skip a Fix-severity finding** without logging a clear reason.
- **Read before edit** — every agent must read the target file before modifying it.
- **Minimal changes** — fix exactly what the finding describes, nothing more.
- **No new features** — this is a fix pass, not a feature pass.
- **No test writing** — Derek's findings are logged as "remaining work" but not executed
here. Test creation deserves its own focused session.
- **Preserve behavior** — if a fix would change external API behavior, mark it as
Risk: High in the plan and add a note in the execution log.
- If the review file has a "Previous Reviews" section noting still-open findings from
prior reviews, include those in the plan too.Related Skills
software-code-review
Use when reviewing code, pull requests, or diffs. Provides patterns, checklists, and templates for systematic code review with a focus on correctness, security, readability, performance, and maintainability.
skill-code-review
Perform thorough, constructive code reviews focusing on correctness, security, maintainability, and best practices
semgrep-coderabbit-review
Two-stage code review combining fast pattern detection (Semgrep) with AI-powered semantic analysis (CodeRabbit)
security-review
Performs security reviews of Hone code using OWASP guidelines. Use when reviewing database queries, CSV import logic, API endpoints, authentication, encryption, or when the user asks about security.
reviewing-python-architecture
Review ADRs to check they follow testing principles and parent PDR constraints. Use when reviewing ADRs or architecture decisions.
review-implementation
Use after hyperpowers:executing-plans completes all tasks - verifies implementation against bd spec, all success criteria met, anti-patterns avoided
review-changes
[Review & Quality] Review all uncommitted changes before commit
review-architecture
Verify DDD patterns, Clean Architecture boundaries, and bITdevKit-specific conventions in modular monolith projects
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performat...
Python Backend Architecture Review
Comprehensive design architecture review for Python backend applications. Use this skill when users ask you to review, analyze, or provide feedback on backend architecture designs, system design documents, or Python application architecture. Covers scalability, security, performance, database design, API design, microservices patterns, deployment architecture, and best practices.
py-review-orchestrator
Execute BioETL hierarchical code review orchestration (L1/L2/L3) across sectors S1-S8 with delegated sub-reviews, scoring, and consolidated reporting in reports/review/FINAL-REVIEW.md. Use when a full-project audit or broad multi-layer review is requested.