wf-review

This skill should only be used when the user uses the word workflow and asks to review changes (select mode = light, light-plus, heavy) with verification and context handoff/pickup to avoid context rot.

5 stars

Best use case

wf-review is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

This skill should only be used when the user uses the word workflow and asks to review changes (select mode = light, light-plus, heavy) with verification and context handoff/pickup to avoid context rot.

Teams using wf-review 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

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/wf-review/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/marchatton/agent-skills/main/.agents/skills/05-review/wf-review/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/wf-review/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How wf-review Compares

Feature / Agentwf-reviewStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

This skill should only be used when the user uses the word workflow and asks to review changes (select mode = light, light-plus, heavy) with verification and context handoff/pickup to avoid context rot.

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

# wf-review

## Purpose

Review changes at the right depth, then produce a clear GO/NO-GO with evidence.

Default mode: light-plus.

Always run basic verification (verify skill). Treat review as provisional if verification cannot be run.

## Note on plan.md

`plan.md` may not exist (it’s optional).
Review should still be completed against:
- `prd.json` acceptance criteria (preferred), or `prd.md`
- the actual diff
- verification results

## Args (free text)

Parse mode + target from user text.

Mode tokens (first match wins):
- `light`
- `light-plus`
- `heavy`

Accept either:
- `wf-review light PR#123`
- `wf-review mode: heavy target: <url>`
- `wf-review <target>` (mode missing)

Target examples:
- PR number/URL
- branch name
- file path (doc review)
- dossier folder path
- empty = current branch

If mode missing: default light-plus.
If target missing: default current branch (but ask if ambiguous).

## Outputs

All modes:
- Review summary + severity (P1/P2/P3)
- Verification result (verify skill) + GO/NO-GO
- Explicit check against PRD acceptance criteria
- Optional handoff notes (recommended)

Heavy only:
- Todo files for findings (file-todos skill)

## Mode behaviours

### light
Minimum: run verify skill and then native `/review` only (no extra passes).

Use when:
- small diffs
- low risk
- you mostly want a sanity check

### light-plus (default)
Run:
- verify skill
- native `/review`
- repo prompt review: `/rp-review`

Use when:
- most PRs
- you want repo-specific conventions checked too

### heavy
Do light-plus, then:
- deep scenario passes (security, data integrity, ops)
- synthesize + de-dupe
- create todos for all findings (file-todos)
- optional `test-browser` if UI/user flow changed
- final GO/NO-GO

Use when:
- auth/payments/privacy/external APIs/migrations
- big refactors / large surface area
- repeated CI failures / flaky behaviour
- user explicitly asks for “thorough”

## Steps (all modes)

1) Determine mode + target
- mode default light-plus
- target default current branch (unless user says otherwise)

2) (Recommended) Pickup if starting fresh thread / resuming
- Invoke `pickup` if:
  - new chat/thread, or
  - user says “resume / pick up”, or
  - repo/branch uncertain

3) Gather review context
- If dossier provided: load `prd.json` (preferred) + `plan.md` if present.
- If PR number/URL: capture title/body/files/diff via `gh pr view --json` if available.
- If branch: confirm current branch matches target (ask before switching).
- If file path: open the file and treat as doc review.

4) Run review analysis for chosen mode
- light: `/review`
- light-plus: `/review` then `/rp-review`
- heavy: do light-plus, then run the heavy checklist

5) Run basic verification (all modes)
- Invoke `verify` skill in target repo.
- If verify cannot be run: mark as “unverified” and block GO unless docs-only.

6) Summarise + decide
- De-dupe findings.
- Label severity:
  - P1 blocks merge/release
  - P2 should fix
  - P3 nice-to-have
- Explicitly check: do changes satisfy `prd.json` acceptance criteria?
- Write GO/NO-GO with reasons + evidence.

7) (Recommended) Handoff at workflow boundary
- If switching workflows next (fix work, release, more Ralph): invoke `handoff`.
- If user wants clean context: recommend starting a new thread and running `pickup` there with the handoff note path.

## Heavy checklist (only when mode=heavy)

A) Review passes (single-agent, sequential; no sub-agents)
- `security-sentinel` skill
- `performance-oracle` skill
- `architecture-strategist` skill
- `data-integrity-guardian`skill
- `agent-native-reviewer` skill
- `pattern-recognition-specialist` skill
- `language reviewer` skill if relevant (kieran-*-reviewer)
- `code-simplicity-reviewer` skill
- if migrations/backfills: `data-migration-expert` skill + `deployment-verification-agent` skill

B) Deep-dive scenarios
- invalid inputs, boundaries, concurrency, scale, timeouts, resource exhaustion
- data corruption, security attacks, cascading failures

C) Todo creation (mandatory in heavy)
- Invoke `file-todos` for all findings.
- Store under the active dossier if present:
  - `docs/04-projects/<lane>/<id>_<slug>/todos/`
- Otherwise fall back:
  - `todos/`

D) Verify loop
- Run verify skill.
- If verify fails: ask “Fix failures now? (y/n)”
  - If yes: loop up to N iterations (default 10): fix top failure, rerun verify
  - If no: proceed to summary with failures called out

E) Optional browser QA
- If UI/user-flow changed: run `test-browser` and record evidence.

F) Mandatory handoff
- End heavy review with `handoff`.
- Recommend a new thread for fix work: `/new` then `pickup` + read the handoff note.

## Verification

- Verify skill run (or explicitly marked unverified)
- Heavy: todo files created for all findings

## Go/No-Go

- GO if verify is green and no P1 gaps remain (and PRD acceptance criteria are satisfied).
- NO-GO if verify fails, or correctness/security/rollout risks remain unresolved.

Related Skills

build-review-interface

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

Build a custom browser-based annotation interface tailored to your data for reviewing LLM traces and collecting structured feedback. Use when you need to build an annotation tool, review traces, or collect human labels.

kieran-typescript-reviewer

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

Use this agent when you need to review TypeScript code changes with an extremely high quality bar. This agent should be invoked after implementing features, modifying existing code, or creating new TypeScript components. The agent applies Kieran's strict TypeScript conventions and taste preferences to ensure code meets exceptional standards.\n\n.

kieran-python-reviewer

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

Use this agent when you need to review Python code changes with an extremely high quality bar. This agent should be invoked after implementing features, modifying existing code, or creating new Python modules. The agent applies Kieran's strict Python conventions and taste preferences to ensure code meets exceptional standards.\n\n.

code-simplicity-reviewer

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

Use this agent when you need a final review pass to ensure code changes are as simple and minimal as possible. This agent should be invoked after implementation is complete but before finalizing changes, to identify opportunities for simplification, remove unnecessary complexity, and ensure adherence to YAGNI principles.

agent-native-reviewer

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

Focused parity review for a feature/PR. Use when validating action/context parity and generating a capability map + findings.

plan-review

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

This skill should be used when having multiple specialized agents review a plan in parallel.

skill-creator

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, update or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.

modular-skills-architect

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

Map and refactor an agent context ecosystem: skills, commands/workflows, hooks, agent files, AGENTS.md templates, and docs. Output system map, module/dependency design, Register updates, and a concrete split/consolidate/rename/delete plan. Use when routing or ownership is messy.

heal-skill

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

This skill should be used when fixing incorrect SKILL.md files with outdated instructions or APIs.

create-agent-skills

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

Expert guidance for creating, writing, and refining Claude Code Skills. Use when working with SKILL.md files, authoring new skills, improving existing skills, or understanding skill structure and best practices.

agent-native-audit

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

Comprehensive agent-native architecture audit with scored principles and multi-slice review. Use for system-wide health checks or periodic audits.

write-judge-prompt

5
from marchatton/agent-skills

Design LLM-as-Judge evaluators for subjective criteria that code-based checks cannot handle. Use when a failure mode requires interpretation (tone, faithfulness, relevance, completeness). Do NOT use when the failure mode can be checked with code (regex, schema validation, execution tests). Do NOT use when you need to validate or calibrate the judge — use validate-evaluator instead.