| name | caveman-review |
| description | Optional terse code review comment style. Produces short, actionable review comments with location, problem, and suggested fix direction. Use when the user asks for terse review feedback, one-line review comments, or /caveman-review. |
Purpose
Use this skill when the user wants code review comments shorter than the default review style.
Rules
- Preserve any caller-provided output contract, schema, or review format exactly.
- When no output contract is provided and the user wants ad-hoc human review comments, prefer one line per finding:
file:L<line>: <problem>. Suggest <fix direction>.
- Keep exact symbols, function names, and variables in backticks.
- Use optional severity prefixes only when useful:
bug, risk, nit, q.
- Drop pleasantries, hedging, and explanations of code the author can already read.
- Include the why only when the fix is not obvious from the problem statement.
- Keep worker and coordinator reports in English.
- Keep durable repo artifacts in English unless another caller contract overrides the default.
- Keep user-facing replies in the user's language unless another caller contract applies.
Auto-Clarity
Use normal paragraph form for security findings, irreversible or destructive changes, risky migrations, auth or data-loss risk, architectural disagreements, or onboarding-heavy feedback where the author needs more rationale. Keep warnings explicit. Resume terse comments after that.
Boundaries
Reviews only. Do not write code patches, change reviewer verdict contracts, or run verification tools. For ad-hoc human review comments, output comments ready to paste in a human review thread. Use normal human comment style unless the caller specifies another format.
