claude-review

name	claude-review
description	Ask Claude to review Shannon work. Use when the user requests Claude review or during large/risky experiments before acting on conclusions.

Claude Review

Use Claude as an independent reviewer for Shannon issue designs, code diffs, experiment results, and architectural decisions.

The review is advisory. Codex remains responsible for deciding whether Claude's feedback is correct, acting on valid findings, and explaining any rejected findings.

Do not rely on Claude session memory alone. Session IDs are useful for grouping related reviews and may help continuity, but every important review prompt must include the essential issue, diff, log, and question context explicitly.

When This Skill Applies

Use this skill when:

• the user asks for "claude review", "ask Claude", or similar;
• an experiment is large, risky, or touches the Nushell/Reedline fork surface;
• an experiment has already failed once and the next design needs review;
• a code change affects architecture, shell state synchronization, process handling, signal handling, config loading, terminal behavior, or persistent state;
• before closing an issue after a complex series of experiments.

Review Timeout

Every Claude review has a hard timeout of 15 minutes.

Use the helper script in this skill instead of calling claude directly. The script enforces the timeout with Python's subprocess API and terminates Claude's process group on timeout because macOS does not provide a portable timeout command by default.

Files and Logs

All review state and output lives under:

logs/claude-review/

The helper script maintains:

Path	Purpose
logs/claude-review/current-session-id	reusable Claude session UUID
logs/claude-review/<timestamp>-prompt.md	exact prompt sent to Claude
logs/claude-review/<timestamp>-stdout.json	raw Claude JSON output
logs/claude-review/<timestamp>-stderr.log	Claude stderr / timeout details

These logs are intentionally under logs/, which is gitignored. They may still contain sensitive diffs or local paths. Keep context narrow and do not write secrets into review prompts.

Process

1. Prepare the review context. Include only the context Claude needs. Prefer concrete artifacts:

   • the user's current request;
   • the issue file and experiment section;
   • relevant git diff or git diff --staged;
   • test commands and observed outputs;
   • screenshots/log paths when those are part of the evidence.

2. Ask specific questions. The prompt should tell Claude what kind of review to perform. Examples:

   • "Audit this experiment design for contradictions, missing verification, and architectural risks."
   • "Review this diff for correctness, regressions, and missing tests."
   • "Given these logs, identify what failed and what experiment should come next."

3. Run the helper script.

   python3 skills/claude-review/scripts/claude_review.py \
     --context issues/0776-pdf-not-loading/README.md \
     "Audit Experiment 4. Focus on whether the scope is right and whether the verification would prove the result."
   

   For a staged diff review:

   git diff --staged | python3 skills/claude-review/scripts/claude_review.py \
     "Review this staged diff for bugs, regressions, and missing tests."
   

   For a fresh thread:

   python3 skills/claude-review/scripts/claude_review.py --new-session \
     "Start a new review thread. Reply with the review session status."
   

4. Read the result. The helper prints:

   • the session ID;
   • the prompt path;
   • the raw JSON output path;
   • the extracted Claude text if it can parse it.

5. Act on valid findings. If Claude finds a real issue and the user asked for implementation, fix it. If Claude is wrong or speculative, do not make the change; briefly document why.

6. Report high-signal results. Summarize Claude's actionable findings to the user. Do not paste long raw output unless the user asks for it.

Session Handling

The helper script uses claude -p --session-id <uuid> for a new review thread and claude -p --resume <uuid> for follow-up turns.

Default policy: maintain one continuous review session. The helper resumes the stored session id on every run. Keep doing that — review after review goes into the same thread.

• Do NOT pass --new-session on your own judgment. Not for a "different topic," not for a new experiment, not for a new issue. The user decides when to start a new thread. Only pass --new-session when the user explicitly asks for a fresh/new review session.
• If logs/claude-review/current-session-id exists, the script resumes it. If no session exists, the script creates a UUID and stores it.
• Automatic self-heal. If resuming the stored session fails because the id stopped working (expired/unknown), the helper retries once with a fresh UUID, adopts it, and prints a note: stored session could not be resumed... line. You do not need to do anything — continuity is restored automatically going forward.
• --new-session (explicit user request only) creates and stores a new UUID.
• Always include the essential context again on every review. The smoke test proved the CLI can resume the same session ID, but model-visible history should not be treated as guaranteed.

Claude Command Shape

The helper invokes Claude like this:

claude -p \
  --output-format json \
  --session-id <uuid> \
  --add-dir /Users/astrohacker/dev/shannon \
  --permission-mode dontAsk \
  --tools "Read,Grep,Glob" \
  "<prompt>"

For follow-up turns, the helper replaces --session-id <uuid> with --resume <uuid>.

The default tool set is review-oriented. Claude may inspect files using Read/Grep/Glob. Bash is disabled by default because Bash is not read-only when paired with --permission-mode dontAsk.

If a review truly needs Bash, opt in explicitly and include the reason in the user-facing summary:

python3 skills/claude-review/scripts/claude_review.py --allow-bash ...

If a review should use only supplied context, run with:

python3 skills/claude-review/scripts/claude_review.py --no-tools ...

Prompt Template

Use this structure for substantial reviews:

You are reviewing Shannon work. Take a code-review stance: findings first,
ordered by severity, with file/line references where possible.

Task:
<what Claude should review>

Context:
<issue, experiment, diff, logs, screenshots, test output>

Questions:
1. Is the design/implementation correct?
2. What are the concrete risks or missed cases?
3. What should be changed before implementation/commit?
4. If nothing should change, say that clearly.

Automatic Use in Large Experiments

For large experiments, run Claude review at one or both checkpoints:

1. After designing the experiment, before implementation. Ask Claude to audit the design for contradictions, missing verification, and scope creep.

2. After implementation, before final result or commit. Ask Claude to review the diff, logs, and result language.

Do not block forever waiting for Claude. The 15-minute timeout is the maximum. If Claude times out, record that and continue with normal engineering judgment.

Smoke Test

After creating or changing this skill, test the helper without giving Claude repo-changing authority:

python3 skills/claude-review/scripts/claude_review.py --new-session --no-tools \
  "Smoke test: reply with OK and one sentence describing what session continuity means."

Then run a second call without --new-session:

python3 skills/claude-review/scripts/claude_review.py --no-tools \
  "In one sentence, say whether this is the same review session."

Both outputs should be saved under logs/claude-review/. The printed session_id should match between the two runs. The second answer does not need to prove memory of the first prompt; the important smoke-test properties are exit code 0, saved artifacts, and stable session ID reuse.