Finishing a Development Branch
obra/superpowers
Walks the last step of a branch: confirm tests pass, detect the git environment, ask how to integrate, carry out your choice and clean up the worktree.
This skill should be used when the user asks to "formal review", "formal lens review", or invokes /formal-review.
$ npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill formal-review -a claude-codeProject install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.
$ gh skill install jongwony/epistemic-protocols formal-review --agent claude-codeProject scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/.claude/skills/formal-review .claude/skills/formal-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.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/
Install the "formal-review" agent skill from https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/tree/main/.claude/skills/formal-review into .claude/skills/formal-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "formal-review", then confirm the skill loads.Claude Code copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$skill-installer install https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/tree/main/.claude/skills/formal-reviewType this inside Codex. $skill-installer <name> installs a curated skill from openai/skills. The installer writes to $CODEX_HOME/skills (default ~/.codex/skills). Restart Codex if the skill does not show up.
$ npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill formal-review -a codexProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.codex/skills/.
$ gh skill install jongwony/epistemic-protocols formal-review --agent codexProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols.git skills-src && mkdir -p .agents/skills && cp -r skills-src/.claude/skills/formal-review .agents/skills/formal-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.agents/skills/ instead of .agents/skills for a personal install.
Codex skills documentation · loads skills from .agents/skills/
Install the "formal-review" agent skill from https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/tree/main/.claude/skills/formal-review into .agents/skills/formal-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "formal-review", then confirm the skill loads.Codex copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill formal-review -a cursorProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.cursor/skills/.
$ gh skill install jongwony/epistemic-protocols formal-review --agent cursorProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols.git skills-src && mkdir -p .cursor/skills && cp -r skills-src/.claude/skills/formal-review .cursor/skills/formal-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.cursor/skills/ instead of .cursor/skills for a personal install.
Cursor skills documentation · loads skills from .cursor/skills/, .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, .codex/skills/
Install the "formal-review" agent skill from https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/tree/main/.claude/skills/formal-review into .cursor/skills/formal-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "formal-review", then confirm the skill loads.Cursor copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gemini skills install https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols.git --path .claude/skills/formal-review--scope user (default) or --scope workspace; --path is the subfolder of the repo that holds the skill; --consent skips the security confirmation prompt.
$ npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill formal-review -a gemini-cliProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.gemini/skills/.
$ gh skill install jongwony/epistemic-protocols formal-review --agent gemini-cliProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols.git skills-src && mkdir -p .gemini/skills && cp -r skills-src/.claude/skills/formal-review .gemini/skills/formal-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.gemini/skills/ instead of .gemini/skills for a personal install, then run /skills reload.
Gemini CLI skills documentation · loads skills from .gemini/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "formal-review" agent skill from https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/tree/main/.claude/skills/formal-review into .gemini/skills/formal-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "formal-review", then confirm the skill loads.Gemini CLI copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ gh skill install jongwony/epistemic-protocols formal-reviewInstalls for Copilot at project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Preview a skill first with gh skill preview. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).
$ npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill formal-review -a github-copilotProject install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.copilot/skills/.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols.git skills-src && mkdir -p .github/skills && cp -r skills-src/.claude/skills/formal-review .github/skills/formal-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.copilot/skills/ instead of .github/skills for a personal install. Commit .github/skills so cloud agent and code review can use it.
GitHub Copilot skills documentation · loads skills from .github/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "formal-review" agent skill from https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/tree/main/.claude/skills/formal-review into .github/skills/formal-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "formal-review", then confirm the skill loads.GitHub Copilot copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
$ npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill formal-review -a opencodeOpenCode documents no install command of its own. Project install goes to .agents/skills/; add -g for ~/.config/opencode/skills/.
$ gh skill install jongwony/epistemic-protocols formal-review --agent opencodeProject scope by default (.agents/skills/); add --scope user for a personal install.
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols.git skills-src && mkdir -p .opencode/skills && cp -r skills-src/.claude/skills/formal-review .opencode/skills/formal-review && rm -rf skills-srcUse ~/.config/opencode/skills/ instead of .opencode/skills for a personal install.
OpenCode skills documentation · loads skills from .opencode/skills/, .claude/skills/, .agents/skills/
Install the "formal-review" agent skill from https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/tree/main/.claude/skills/formal-review into .opencode/skills/formal-review/ in this project. Copy the whole folder (SKILL.md and every file beside it), keep the folder name "formal-review", then confirm the skill loads.OpenCode copies the folder itself, the same result as the manual copy. Check what it changed before you commit it.
formal-reviewThis skill should be used when the user asks to "formal review", "formal lens review", or invokes /formal-review.
Formal Review is an agent skill from jongwony/epistemic-protocols. This skill should be used when the user asks to "formal review", "formal lens review", or invokes /formal-review. A fixed-lens PR review for this repository's formally-structured protocol changes: it pins a Category Theory / Type Theory / Operational Semantics lens panel over only the files changed in a PR, analyzes each lens in isolation, adversarially cross-verifies the findings, and posts the survivors as a single consolidated PR comment. Project-local contributor tooling.
Its SKILL.md is about 3.5k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.
It sits in Development, covering Pull requests. The repository describes itself as: Epistemic protocols for Claude Code — structure human-AI interaction quality at every decision point - https://epistemic-protocols.com. The licence is MIT.
5 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.
Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 8419815. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.
Pre-approves these tools, so the agent can use them without asking each time:
BashReadGrepGlobTaskFrom allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.
Shell commands in SKILL.md call:
gitghjqFrom the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.
No URLs in SKILL.md. Its commands use git and gh, which can reach the network depending on how they are called.
From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.
Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.
From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.
Formal Review loads about 3.5k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 124 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,755 words of instructions outside code blocks.
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.
The automated check noted patterns worth knowing about, such as sudo or a known installer.
allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Grep, Glob, TaskAutomated 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.
The full file from jongwony/epistemic-protocols at commit 8419815, republished under its MIT licence (© jongwony). 1,755 words, ~3,498 tokens.
.claude/skills/formal-review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).A one-pass review of a PR diff through a fixed formal lens panel — Category Theory ∥ Type Theory ∥ Operational Semantics — posted back to the PR as a single consolidated comment for human reviewers. The panel is pinned at definition time rather than derived from the diff, so a formally-structured protocol change gets a meticulous, complete formal review on the same three axes every run.
The formal triple (morphism coherence, type soundness, evaluation-order consistency) is this repository's standing review axis — protocol SKILL.md files carry category-theoretic formal blocks, TYPES / PHASE TRANSITIONS, and operational-semantics state machines. Pinning all three here guarantees the formal partial review is exhaustive every run. The fixed panel is therefore project-specific and belongs in the project skill layer. This skill is self-contained — it names its own lenses and describes its own isolated-then-adversarial substrate, with no plugin dependency.
/formal-review [scope?]
scope : PR number | (implicit) -- optional; PR number, or implicit current-branch PR / working-tree detection
-- absent → Phase 0 detects itWhen scope is omitted, Phase 0 detects it (current-branch PR, else working tree). The lens panel is fixed in this skill — Category Theory, Type Theory, Operational Semantics — and is not a runtime parameter; the scope is the only argument.
/formal-review [scope?]
Phase 0 : scope detect (PR number | current-branch PR | working tree) + free-exit — no SHA pinning, tools fetch live
Phase 1 : diff prep — fetch diff live (gh pr diff {N} | git diff HEAD); read file fate (A/M/D/R) from diff headers; state diff-reading conventions
Phase 2 : fixed-lens review (isolated → adversarial) — pin the formal triple (Category Theory ∥ Type Theory ∥ OpSem); substrate described in-skill (not /conduct)
2a isolated per-lens analysis (independence) — each finding: file:line + lens tag + severity + evidence-grounded rationale, confidence ≥ 80%
2b adversarial cross-verification — refute each finding; survive → Phase 3, defeated → recorded in the Phase 4 comment as refuted (relay drop w/ basis)
Phase 3 : direction-error guard (verify) — cross-check review text vs diff-header fate; Added-but-described-as-deleted → warning augment (relay)
Phase 4 : post comment — one consolidated PR comment carrying every finding (path:line in text); substrate write → harness permission
free-exit : user may end the review at any time (declared once in Phase 0)The skill's identity is the fixed formal lens panel applied once over a PR diff and posted back as a single PR comment — a one-pass review for human reviewers, not a convergence loop.
TYPES, PHASE TRANSITIONS, MORPHISM, LOOP, CONVERGENCE) where the formal triple is the load-bearing review axisScope detection — the skill runs interactively on the branch, so resolve the scope to a target the tools can fetch live; no base/head SHA pinning is needed:
scope: scope = PR {N}gh pr view --json number 2>/dev/null to detect a current-branch PR; if found, scope = that PRgit status --porcelain (empty output), not git diff HEAD, so an untracked-only working tree is not mistaken for "no changes": report and stop (nothing to review)Free-exit affordance (declared once). Announce here, before the review begins: "You can end this review at any time by saying so; I will stop and report what has been gathered." This is a free-response pathway, not a gate option — it does not reappear as a peer option at later phases.
Fetch the diff for the resolved scope with your tools — gh pr diff {N} (PR scope) or git diff HEAD (working tree). The tool resolves the current PR/tree directly, so the diff is the single live source for both file fate and line-level evidence. For a working-tree scope, git diff HEAD omits untracked (new, never-added) files; detect them with git status --porcelain and read each untracked file's content as added (new file) lines so an untracked-only change set is reviewed rather than silently skipped.
Read file fate directly from the diff headers — this is authoritative:
new file mode → Added: created by this change; the body begins --- /dev/null / +++ b/<path> and the + lines are the file's initial content.deleted file mode → Deleted: removed by this change; the body begins --- a/<path> / +++ /dev/null and the - lines are the prior content removed.rename from <old> / rename to <new> → Renamed.Diff-reading conventions: lines starting with + are added; lines starting with - are removed; a leading space is unchanged context.
The diff headers are the authoritative source for file fate and the hunks carry the line-level evidence; both feed Phase 2, and the fate read here is re-used by the Phase 3 direction-error guard.
This skill names the parallel perspectives and describes the substrate that analyzes and adversarially verifies them directly — the isolated-then-adversarial arrangement is recorded here in the skill itself. This skill fixes the method — the lines of work, their order, independence, combination, stopping point, and where results go — so the method is not underdetermined and /conduct's AI-guided activation precondition is unmet: not activating it here IS that precondition read, not a shortcut past it. Review only the changed files.
Lens panel. This skill pins the panel to the fixed formal triple every run, so the same three axes are covered on every diff. The fixed lenses are:
2a — Isolated per-lens analysis (independence-before-contamination). Analyze the changed files through each lens in isolation: every lens forms its findings without seeing the other lenses' findings, so a blind spot or bias in one lens cannot contaminate the others. Substrate realization (recorded here, executed by the substrate): run each lens as an isolated analysis — e.g. an isolated subagent per lens, briefed only with its single lens plus the diff — and collect the per-lens findings independently. Each finding carries:
[Category Theory], [Type Theory], or [OpSem]2b — Adversarial cross-verification. Once the isolated findings are collected, run a single adversarial pass over the aggregate: each finding is challenged against the other lenses and against the diff evidence — does it survive a refutation attempt, or is it defeated (hallucinated, stale against the actual diff, context-inappropriate, or subsumed by another finding)? Substrate realization: a refutation pass — the main session, a dedicated adversarial subagent, or an independent model — that tries to refute each finding and records survival or defeat with cited basis. Surviving findings proceed to Phase 3; defeated findings do not proceed as surviving findings — they are recorded in the Phase 4 consolidated comment as refuted, with their refutation basis (a relay drop with cited basis, never a silent discard). This is a single verification pass, not a convergence loop — this review stays one-pass.
If the changes are trivial (e.g. version bumps only), state that briefly and skip the full lens sweep and its adversarial pass.
Before posting, cross-check the review text against the file fate read from the diff headers in Phase 1. For each Added file, if the review describes it as deleted, that is a likely diff-direction inversion — the reviewer read the diff backwards. Surface a warning that augments the review (it does not replace the findings): a direction-misread notice listing each Added-but-described-as-deleted file, advising verification against the diff headers before treating those findings as legitimate.
This is a relay verify step — a deterministic cross-check of the review text against the authoritative diff-header fate, presented and proceeded through; it does not gate.
Post the findings back to the PR as a single consolidated comment — one comment carrying every finding, not one inline comment per diff line. This is a substrate write — an external, human-visible GitHub mutation — so it routes to the harness permission layer: surface what will be posted (the consolidated comment body) and let the harness gate the execution. The skill does not absorb that decision.
call one comment via gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{N}/comments with body ({owner} and {repo} are gh's repo placeholders, auto-filled from the current repo; the bare repos/{repo}/... form drops the owner segment and resolves wrong). The body lists every finding as text, each referencing its path:line so a reviewer can navigate to it — no inline line-targeting API is used, so no commit_id / path / line / side machinery is needed.
Posting discipline:
path:line, the lens tag ([Category Theory] / [Type Theory] / [OpSem]), and the severity (Critical / Important / Suggestion).jq --rawfile (so the body becomes {"body": "<markdown>"}) and feed that JSON to gh api via --input -; do not pass the Markdown body inside a double-quoted shell argument, because backticks in Markdown trigger shell command substitution, and do not --input the raw Markdown file directly because the endpoint requires a JSON object. (--input makes gh api default to POST, so the comment is created, not listed.)If the scope is a working tree (no PR), there is no PR to post to — present the findings in session text instead and note that posting requires a PR.
path:line in text; preserve lens tags and severity on every finding; skip duplicates.© jongwony, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file
Just SKILL.md in .claude/skills/formal-review of jongwony/epistemic-protocols.
Open the folder on GitHubat commit 8419815
Formal 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.
| Skill | Stars | Used in | Tokens | Auto-check | Licence | Repo updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formal Review this skilljongwony/epistemic-protocols | 173 | — | ~3.5k | Automated safety check: Notes | MIT | |
| Finishing a Development Branchobra/superpowers | 297k | 5 repos | ~1.9k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| PR Babysitteropeninterpreter/openinterpreter | 69k | 3 repos | ~4.2k | Automated safety check: Pass | Apache-2.0 | |
| Check PRonyx-dot-app/onyx | 32k | 2 repos | ~2.3k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| PR Design DocOpenHands/OpenHands | 90k | — | ~2.4k | Automated safety check: Pass | MIT | |
| WooCommerce Code Reviewwoocommerce/woocommerce | 11k | 3 repos | ~1.1k | Automated safety check: Pass | Custom licence |
obra/superpowers
Walks the last step of a branch: confirm tests pass, detect the git environment, ask how to integrate, carry out your choice and clean up the worktree.
openinterpreter/openinterpreter
Watches an open GitHub pull request until it merges, handling review comments, diagnosing CI failures and retrying flaky checks along the way.
onyx-dot-app/onyx
Checks a GitHub, GitLab, or Perforce (p4) pull request (or merge request, or shelved changelist) for unresolved review comments, failing status checks, and incomplete PR descriptions.
OpenHands/OpenHands
For a non-trivial pull request, write a self-contained HTML design doc under the temporary .pr/ directory and link a visibility-appropriate preview in the PR description, so maintainers grasp the…
woocommerce/woocommerce
Reviews WooCommerce code changes against the project's standards, flagging backend PHP architecture, naming, documentation, data integrity and testing violations.
payloadcms/payload
A skill your agent uses when a Payload pull request needs a concise visual walkthrough for reviewers.
jongwony/epistemic-protocols
This skill should be used when the user asks to "run the outcome eval", "paired bare vs protocol", "which decisions did the protocol surface", "count what the AI asked or presented", "does /inquire…
jongwony/epistemic-protocols
This skill should be used when the user asks to "run the eval", "test whether the protocol actually works at runtime", "check type realization", "measure protocol fulfillment", "run the…
jongwony/epistemic-protocols
This skill should be used when the user asks to "verify protocols", "check consistency before commit", "validate definitions", "run pre-commit checks", "verify soundness", or wants to ensure…
jongwony/epistemic-protocols
This skill should be used when the user asks to "audit plugin encapsulation", "check self-containment semantics", "find contributor-knowledge assumptions", or invokes /encapsulation.
jongwony/epistemic-protocols
The user vaguely recalls something discussed before but cannot name it — one session, or a line of work, topic, or settled concept across several: find it in past records to recognize.
jongwony/epistemic-protocols
A skill your agent uses when the user asks to "check white bear", "audit prohibitions", "find negative framing", or invokes /white-bear.
Categories
This skill should be used when the user asks to "formal review", "formal lens review", or invokes /formal-review. Formal Review is an agent skill from jongwony/epistemic-protocols. This skill should be used when the user asks to "formal review", "formal lens review", or invokes /formal-review.
Formal Review fits situations like: asks to formal review; formal lens review; invokes /formal-review.
Run `npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill formal-review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (.claude/skills/formal-review in jongwony/epistemic-protocols) into .claude/skills/formal-review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.
Run `npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill formal-review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (.claude/skills/formal-review in jongwony/epistemic-protocols) into .agents/skills/formal-review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.
Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill formal-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/formal-review, .gemini/skills/formal-review, .github/skills/formal-review and .opencode/skills/formal-review in your project.
Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Formal Review needs the command-line tools its instructions call (git, gh and jq). Its frontmatter pre-approves these tools: Bash, Read, Grep, Glob, Task.
SKILL.md contains no URLs. Its commands use git and gh, which can reach the network depending on how they are called. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.
Our automated static check of SKILL.md found notes only (pre-approves every shell command (allowed-tools: bash)), nothing it rates as a warning. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.
Formal Review is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.
About 3.5k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 14k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.
Skills that share tags, products or a category with Formal Review: Finishing a Development Branch (obra/superpowers, 297k stars), PR Babysitter (openinterpreter/openinterpreter, 69k stars), Check PR (onyx-dot-app/onyx, 32k stars) and PR Design Doc (OpenHands/OpenHands, 90k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.
jongwony (a GitHub user) maintains it in jongwony/epistemic-protocols, which has 173 GitHub stars. The repository holds 28 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 10, 2026.
Source: jongwony/epistemic-protocols on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.