Agent skill

Review

by entireio in entireio/skills

Review code changes on the current branch using checkpoint transcript context to understand developer intent before auditing the diff.

MITAuto-check passedDevelopment

Install Review

skills CLI
$ npx skills add entireio/skills --skill review -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install entireio/skills review --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/entireio/skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/review .claude/skills/review && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
review
GitHub stars
223
Token cost
~1.9k tokens
SKILL.md length
865 words
Files
2 (incl. references)
Skills in repo
12
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Review code changes on the current branch using checkpoint transcript context to understand developer intent before auditing the diff.

  • Works in 8 steps: Verify environment → Detect base ref → Compute scope → …
  • The user asks for a code review
  • SKILL.md covers Response Format, Rules, Process and Degraded Mode (no Entire CLI…, plus 1 more section
  • Calls git

What it does

Review is an agent skill from entireio/skills. Review code changes on the current branch using checkpoint transcript context to understand developer intent before auditing the diff. Use when the user asks for a code review, wants to review branch changes, or asks to audit recent work before merging.

Its SKILL.md is about 1.9k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 2 other files, including reference files (for example `references/review-rules.md`).

It sits in Development, covering Code review. The repository describes itself as: ✨ Cross-agent skills that help coding agents use Entire context from Checkpoints, sessions, and git history to search past work, explain code, and hand off sessions. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • The user asks for a code review
  • Wants to review branch changes
  • Asks to audit recent work before merging

Example prompts

  • “/review”

Workflow steps

8 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Verify environment
  2. Detect base ref
  3. Compute scope
  4. Gather checkpoint intent (skip in degraded mode)
  5. Read the diff
  6. Perform the review
  7. Output findings
  8. Offer follow-up

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit fe5266f. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • git

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md. Its commands use git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Review loads about 1.9k tokens when it runs, and up to ~3k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 65 tokens; SKILL.md has 865 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~65
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~1.9k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~3k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from entireio/skills at commit fe5266f, republished under its MIT licence (© entireio). 865 words, ~1,856 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 1 other file; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
review
description
Review code changes on the current branch using checkpoint transcript context to understand developer intent before auditing the diff. Use when the user asks for a code review, wants to review branch changes, or asks to audit recent work before merging.

Review

Review code changes on the current branch by first reading checkpoint transcripts to understand the intent behind each change, then auditing the actual diff for issues. This produces an intent-aware review that catches mismatches between what the developer wanted and what the code actually does.

Response Format

Begin the first response to this skill invocation with the line:

Entire Review:

followed by a blank line, then the content.

  • Apply the header to the first response of the invocation only. Do not re-print it on follow-up turns within the same invocation.
  • Do not include the header on error or early-exit responses (e.g. "not a git repository", "no commits found between branch and base").

Rules

  1. This is a read-only audit. Do not modify any files during the review.
  2. Always show a scope banner before findings so the user knows what is being reviewed.
  3. If checkpoint context is unavailable, still perform the review using only the diff and commit messages. Clearly state that the review lacks intent context.
  4. Group findings by file. Within each file, order by severity (Critical > High > Medium > Low).
  5. Every finding must include a concrete suggestion or explanation, not just flag the issue.
  6. After presenting findings, ask the user if they want a fix plan. Do not auto-fix.
  7. Do not review generated files, lock files, or binary files unless the user explicitly asks for them.

Process

1. Verify environment

Run entire version to check if the CLI is available. If it is not installed, note that the review will proceed without checkpoint intent context (degraded mode).

2. Detect base ref

Find the mainline branch to diff against. Try these refs in order and use the first that exists:

bash
git rev-parse --verify origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null
git rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null
git rev-parse --verify origin/master 2>/dev/null
git rev-parse --verify main 2>/dev/null
git rev-parse --verify master 2>/dev/null

If none exist, tell the user no base ref was found and ask them to specify one.

3. Compute scope
bash
git rev-list --count <base>..HEAD
git diff --stat <base>..HEAD

Record the number of commits and files changed. This forms the scope banner.

4. Gather checkpoint intent (skip in degraded mode)
bash
git log --format='%H%x00%s%x00%b' <base>..HEAD

Extract Entire-Checkpoint: trailer values from commit bodies. Deduplicate checkpoint IDs.

For each unique checkpoint ID (up to 20):

bash
entire checkpoint explain --checkpoint <checkpoint-id> --json --no-pager

Parse the JSON to extract session metadata. For each non-review session in the checkpoint, prefer the summary (intent + outcome). If no summary is available, fall back to the latest user prompt. Truncate each checkpoint detail to 320 characters.

If --json fails for a checkpoint, fall back to the bare human-readable output:

bash
entire checkpoint explain --checkpoint <checkpoint-id> --no-pager

Do not use --full in the review workflow — it produces long narrative text harder for agents to parse in bulk. If that also fails, skip the checkpoint and note it was unavailable.

Additionally, read the current in-progress session (if any) for uncommitted work context:

bash
entire session current --json

If this returns valid JSON, extract last_prompt and files_touched — these represent the intent behind uncommitted changes that are not yet captured in any checkpoint.

Build an intent map: for each file in the diff (committed + uncommitted), collect the relevant intent context from all checkpoints and the active session that touched it.

5. Read the diff
bash
git diff <base>..HEAD

Also include uncommitted changes:

bash
git diff HEAD

For large diffs (>5000 lines total), focus on the most critical files:

  • Files with the most changes
  • Files mentioned in checkpoint intents
  • Source files over generated/config files

Read individual file diffs as needed rather than loading the entire diff at once.

Show full SKILL.md (325 more words)Show less
6. Perform the review

Read the review rules:

references/review-rules.md

For each file in the diff, review it considering:

With checkpoint context:

  • Does the implementation match the stated intent?
  • Were the constraints from the transcript respected?
  • Did the agent miss edge cases it discussed?
  • Are there leftover debugging artifacts or TODOs?

Always (with or without context):

  • Logic errors, off-by-one, null safety
  • Security issues (injection, auth bypass, data exposure)
  • Performance concerns (N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations)
  • Error handling gaps
  • API contract violations
  • Dead code or unreachable branches
7. Output findings

Present findings using severity prefixes that align with the entire review --fix parser:

Entire Review:

Reviewing <branch> vs <base>: N commits, M files changed
[Intent context: available from K checkpoints | unavailable — reviewing diff only]

## path/to/file.ts

Critical: <issue description>
  Intent: <what the checkpoint said this should do, if available>
  Actual: <what the code actually does>
  Fix: <concrete suggestion>

High: <issue description>
  Intent: <what the checkpoint said this should do, if available>
  Actual: <what the code actually does>
  Fix: <concrete suggestion>

Medium: <improvement opportunity>
  Issue: <what is wrong>
  Fix: <concrete suggestion>

## path/to/other-file.ts

Low: <observation that is not a bug but worth noting>

---

Found N issues (X critical, Y high, Z medium, W low).
Would you like me to create a fix plan for the critical and high issues?

When checkpoint context is unavailable for a finding, omit the Intent: line and use Issue: / Fix: instead.

8. Offer follow-up

After presenting findings, wait for the user's response:

  • If they say yes to a fix plan, outline specific steps to address each critical/high issue.
  • If they ask to fix directly, switch to implementation mode and address the issues.
  • If they decline, the review is complete.

Degraded Mode (no Entire CLI or no checkpoints)

When checkpoint context is unavailable:

  1. Skip step 4 entirely
  2. In the scope banner, state: "Intent context unavailable — reviewing diff only"
  3. Omit the "Intent:" line from findings
  4. Still perform the full code-level review from step 6
  5. Note at the end: "This review was performed without Entire checkpoint context. With checkpoints enabled, the review would also verify that implementation matches the original developer intent."

Failure Modes

  • No commits between base and HEAD: Tell the user the branch has no changes relative to the base. Do not output a review.
  • Cannot detect base ref: Ask the user to specify the base branch or commit.
  • Diff too large (>100 files): Ask the user if they want to review all files or focus on a subset. Suggest reviewing only source files or files with checkpoint context.
  • entire checkpoint explain fails: Note the specific checkpoint was unavailable, continue reviewing remaining files without that context.

© entireio, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 1 other file (references) in skills/review of entireio/skills.

  • SKILL.md
  • references/review-rules.md

Open the folder on GitHubat commit fe5266f

Compare with similar skills

Review next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Review compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Review this skillentireio/skills223—~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
PR Babysitteropeninterpreter/openinterpreter69k3 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Code Review ChecklistshareAI-lab/learn-claude-code78k4 repos~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Backend Code Reviewlangflow-ai/langflow155k—~3.5kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT
Mole Bug Patternstw93/Mole70k—~2kAutomated safety check: PassGPL-3.0
Backend Code Reviewlanggenius/dify158k—~676Automated safety check: PassCustom licence

Similar skills

  • PR Babysitter

    openinterpreter/openinterpreter

    Watches an open GitHub pull request until it merges, handling review comments, diagnosing CI failures and retrying flaky checks along the way.

    69k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~4.2k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Code Review Checklist

    shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code

    Reviews code against a five-part checklist covering security, correctness, performance, maintainability and testing, and reports findings in a fixed format.

    78k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~1.1k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Backend Code Review

    langflow-ai/langflow

    Review backend code for quality, security, maintainability, and best practices based on established checklist rules.

    155k GitHub stars~3.5k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check: notes
  • A catalog of recurring bug shapes in the Mole Mac cleaner, used to review safety-sensitive diffs for deletion safety, unbounded commands, shell traps and weak tests.

    70k GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Backend Code Review

    langgenius/dify

    Reviews backend code under api/ for concrete, reproducible defects, routes to rule packs for architecture, schema, repositories and SQLAlchemy, and ranks findings from P0 to P3.

    158k GitHub stars~676 tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • WooCommerce Code Review

    woocommerce/woocommerce

    Reviews WooCommerce code changes against the project's standards, flagging backend PHP architecture, naming, documentation, data integrity and testing violations.

    11k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~1.1k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from entireio/skills

All 12 skills in this repo
  • Address Findings

    entireio/skills

    Address the review findings posted on an Entire trail: fetch the trail's open findings, fix the code, and resolve them on the trail.

    223 GitHub stars~1.6k tokensUpdated 11 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Recall

    entireio/skills

    A skill your agent uses when the user describes a task and wants to know whether something similar has been done before, then turn the closest prior session into a task playbook.

    223 GitHub stars~1.6k tokensUpdated 11 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Replay

    entireio/skills

    A skill your agent uses when the user wants to step through a feature's checkpoints chronologically, pausing at each step to ask questions.

    223 GitHub stars~1.7k tokensUpdated 11 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Search

    entireio/skills

    A skill your agent uses when the user asks to research, investigate, look into, dig into, or search for anything — a topic, feature, bug, decision, or "what do we know about X".

    223 GitHub stars~2.1k tokensUpdated 11 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Session Crosslink

    entireio/skills

    A skill your agent uses when an agent session ran outside the repo whose commits should record it — e.g.

    223 GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated 11 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Session To Skill

    entireio/skills

    A skill your agent uses when the user wants to turn one or more Entire-tracked sessions, checkpoints, or repeated agent workflows into a reusable agent skill.

    223 GitHub stars~2.2k tokensUpdated 11 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Review

What does Review do?

Review code changes on the current branch using checkpoint transcript context to understand developer intent before auditing the diff. Review is an agent skill from entireio/skills. Review code changes on the current branch using checkpoint transcript context to understand developer intent before auditing the diff.

When should I use Review?

Review fits situations like: the user asks for a code review; wants to review branch changes; asks to audit recent work before merging.

How do I install Review in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add entireio/skills --skill review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/review in entireio/skills) into .claude/skills/review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Review in Codex?

Run `npx skills add entireio/skills --skill review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/review in entireio/skills) into .agents/skills/review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Review in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add entireio/skills --skill review -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/review, .gemini/skills/review, .github/skills/review and .opencode/skills/review in your project.

What does Review need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Review needs the command-line tools its instructions call (git).

Does Review access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Its commands use git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Review safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Review use?

Review is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Review use?

About 1.9k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 7.4k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 1.2k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Review?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Review: PR Babysitter (openinterpreter/openinterpreter, 69k stars), Code Review Checklist (shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code, 78k stars), Backend Code Review (langflow-ai/langflow, 155k stars) and Mole Bug Patterns (tw93/Mole, 70k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Review?

entireio (a GitHub organization) maintains it in entireio/skills, which has 223 GitHub stars. The repository holds 12 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 29, 2026.

Source: entireio/skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.