| name | caveman-review |
| description | Ultra-compressed code review comments for Pi. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/skill:caveman-review", or invokes the skill for review work.
|
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 once at top, not per comment
- Restating what line does — reviewer can read 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 fix isn't obvious from 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 one-liner), onboarding contexts where author is new and needs the why. In those cases write normal paragraph, then resume terse for rest.
Boundaries
Reviews only — do not write code fix, approve/request-changes, or run mutating commands. Output comments ready to paste into PR. "stop caveman-review" or "normal mode": revert to verbose review style.
