review
Adversarial senior review of the spec before any code is written. Constructs a skeptical reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R research, and live best-practice — then tries to REFUTE the spec, not rubber-stamp it. Every finding cites evidence (file:line or source); unverifiable ones are flagged. Survivors harden §V; the run ends in an explicit go / no-go gate. Triggers before building anything high-blast-radius, when the user says "review the spec", "red-team this", "is this plan sound", "senior review", or invokes /ck:review.
npx skills add JuliusBrussee/cavekit --skill review --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# review — refute the spec before build **Every finding cites evidence — file:line or a source. No evidence → flag `[unverified]`. Default to refuted: a flaw you cannot prove is a flaw you note, not one you wave through.** An LLM cannot self-correct on its own judgment — left alone it drifts or degrades. Review fixes that the only way that works: a *separate* skeptic anchored to an *external oracle* — the code, §R, the test suite, the docs. "Looks good" is not a review. A refutation attempt is. ## WHEN TO REVIEW - Before `/build` on a high-blast-radius change (shared module, auth, data, money, public API). - Spec touched §I or §V that other code depends on. - Right-sizing says the cost of a wrong build > the cost of one review pass. Skip for a trivial, reversible, well-understood change. Adversarial review on a typo hallucinates flaws & wastes the budget — the self-critique paradox is real. ## PHASE 0 — CAPTURE Read the spec: §G §C §I §R §V §T. Hold the whole thing. You review the *spec*, not your memory of the conversation. ## PHASE 1 — CONSTRUCT THE SENIOR Build a reviewer with real authority, not a generic critic: - **Codebase** — grep/read the modules this spec touches. What pa
- WHEN TO REVIEW
- PHASE 0 — CAPTURE
- PHASE 1 — CONSTRUCT THE SENIOR
- PHASE 2 — REFUTE
- PHASE 3 — CLASSIFY
- PHASE 4 — HARDEN §V & GATE
- BOUNDARIES
What does the review skill do?
Adversarial senior review of the spec before any code is written. Constructs a skeptical reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R research, and live best-practice — then tries to REFUTE the spec, not rubber-stamp it. Every finding cites evidence (file:line or source); unverifiable ones are flagged. Survivors harden §V; the run ends in an explicit go / no-go gate. Triggers before building anything high-blast-radius, when the user says "review the spec", "red-team this", "is this plan sound", "senior review", or invokes /ck:review.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add JuliusBrussee/cavekit --skill review --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From JuliusBrussee/cavekit, a repository with 1,133 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.