Agent skill

Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer

by levnikolaevich in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

Reviews a completed change for acceptance, regressions and release risk; read-only, not a whole-codebase audit.

MITAuto-check passed

Install Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer

skills CLI
$ npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-52-delivery-reviewer -a claude-code

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

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills ln-52-delivery-reviewer --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/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer .claude/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer && 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
ln-52-delivery-reviewer
GitHub stars
574
Token cost
~5.8k tokens
SKILL.md length
2,895 words
Files
2 (incl. references)
Skills in repo
31
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Reviews a completed change for acceptance, regressions and release risk; read-only, not a whole-codebase audit.

  • Works in 5 steps: Establish Business and Change Scope → Trace Requirements into Implementation → Review Safety, Contracts, and Simplicity → …
  • SKILL.md covers Tool Routing, Evidence Rules, Independent Review and Checklist, plus 2 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer is an agent skill from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills. Reviews a completed change for acceptance, regressions and release risk; read-only, not a whole-codebase audit.

Its SKILL.md is about 5.8k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 2 other files, including reference files (for example `references/independent-review.md`).

The repository describes itself as: Help your AI agent finish the job: solve the right problem, keep changes focused, and show what was verified. For Claude Code and Codex. The licence is MIT.

Example prompts

  • “Use the ln-52-delivery-reviewer skill to review a completed change for acceptance, regressions and release risk; read-only, not a whole-codebase audit”
  • “/ln-52-delivery-reviewer”

Workflow steps

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

  1. Establish Business and Change Scope
  2. Trace Requirements into Implementation
  3. Review Safety, Contracts, and Simplicity
  4. Verify Tests, Documentation, and Operations
  5. Challenge and Synthesize

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 0ce8796. 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

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

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

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    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

Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer loads about 5.8k tokens when it runs, and up to ~7.1k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 34 tokens; SKILL.md has 2,895 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~34
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~5.8k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~7.1k

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 levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills at commit 0ce8796, republished under its MIT licence (© levnikolaevich). 2,895 words, ~5,763 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 1 other file; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
ln-52-delivery-reviewer
description
Reviews a completed change for acceptance, regressions and release risk; read-only, not a whole-codebase audit.

Delivery Reviewer

Goal: Review only the requested delivery change and the causal paths needed to prove its business outcome. Judge scoped acceptance and release safety with concise evidence; do not audit unrelated code, repair findings, update trackers, or widen scope.

Execution contract: The checklist defines completion. Track each item internally as PENDING, PROVEN with evidence, CLEARED with evidence its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap; reading, delegation, tool failure, a zero exit status, or a self-reported success is not proof; only the observed outcome is. Reconcile after each section. Before returning, resolve all PENDING, count only PROVEN and CLEARED, and apply verdict and approval rules to every gap. Preserve intent, scope, and existing authorization. Continue authorized work; ask only for consequential unresolved choices or required external approval. When no one can answer during the run, state the exact question and apply the skill's verdict for the remaining gap instead of waiting or guessing. Scale depth to material risk without skipping checks. Preserve dependency and safety order; otherwise choose an appropriate verification method. Accept equivalent user or repository evidence; no other skill, named artifact, or complete lifecycle is required. Preserve source requirement and decision IDs. Bind reused evidence to relevant source versions, dirty changes, configuration, and environment; invalidate only affected claims. On continuation, reconcile task, authorization, current state, and unresolved evidence. For long work, return a compact continuation record or update an already authorized artifact; read-only skills do not persist it. Distinguish artifact readiness, verified behavior, and external-action authority. Prepare authorized work before required approval. If blocked by an instruction, cite its exact source and unresolved boundary; do not invent approval gates from caution.

Tool Routing

NeedPreferred capabilityUse whenFallback
Scope and repository stateNative file reads plus GitEstablishing outcome, non-goals, base, head, and worktreeSupplied requirements with explicit limitations
Changed behaviorDiff, status, and focused readsResolving the implementation delta and entrypointsCompare supplied artifacts with their stated baseline
Definitions and consumersCode intelligenceAn affected path depends on unchanged symbols or contractsTargeted search that stops when the causal path is proven
Automated verificationRepository-defined commandsBuild, lint, type, test, migration, or smoke gates existInspect scripts and CI; mark execution UNPROVEN
Observable behaviorBrowser, client, or runtime evidenceAcceptance depends on UI, interaction, protocol, or logsStatic trace plus an exact manual check
Reuse and correction researchInstalled manifests plus current official documentation, specifications, and package sourcesA changed generic mechanism needs a reuse decision, external behavior affects correctness, or an externally dependent correction needs verificationReputable primary engineering material; otherwise mark the decision or correction UNVERIFIED
Independent reviewNative subagents in separate contextsAn unresolved distinct risk warrants independent evidenceLinked panel protocol; otherwise direct review with independence limits

Use tools only for the current evidence question. Tool failure is a limitation, not a defect. Do not convert an unavailable command, runtime, or source into a finding without implementation evidence.

Evidence Rules

EvidenceWeight
Reproduced behavior, failing test, compiler output, or deterministic commandStrongest current-behavior evidence
Changed code plus verified caller, consumer, schema, or configuration pathStrong static evidence
Acceptance criterion mapped to implementation and verificationRequired delivery evidence
Official external contract matching the used versionStrong compatibility evidence
Pattern, intuition, or generic practiceLead only until tied to a concrete failure or risk

Apply the finding fields in Output Contract. Repository evidence establishes the defect; external guidance supports corrections and cannot invent local requirements. The review unit is the business change, not the repository. Read unchanged code only to prove an affected path; do not report style preferences or unrelated repository health.

Independent Review

The lead owns scope, evidence, and verdict. Use no panel when direct evidence suffices or the user excludes delegation. When a distinct unresolved risk warrants independent review, read the panel protocol before selecting or launching reviewers; it owns lens selection, frozen context, round limits, retries, and result handling. Missing independence is a limitation unless it leaves essential evidence unproven.

Checklist

1. Establish Business and Change Scope
  • From the request and a focused initial inspection, state the affected actors, problem, protected outcome, changed behavior, acceptance criteria, existing user experience, explicitly authorized user-facing changes, invariants, non-goals, and release boundary. Mark unsupported interpretations UNKNOWN; use BLOCKED when the thesis cannot be established.
  • Establish complexity fit from evidenced maturity, business horizon, scale, team capacity, and lifecycle cost; do not infer enterprise needs from hypothetical growth or call safety-required complexity overengineering.
  • Read applicable repository instructions, inspect uncommitted work, and resolve the authoritative task, base, head, implementation delta, approved plan or target architecture, and permitted transitional compatibility. Identify only change-relevant project policies, standards, and ADRs; do not treat every document as binding.
  • Discover only change-relevant baseline, current-state, target-design, policy, decision, diagram, and migration artifacts by repository convention. Record authority, owner, status, freshness, and supersession, and keep one policy and decision ledger of applicable sources and implementation evidence for compliance, explicit approved deviation, or an unresolved gap.
  • Map changed, causally supporting, and explicitly excluded surfaces. Read outside the diff only to trace affected behavior; do not hunt unrelated code for findings.
  • Classify change-triggered risk from trust, money, destructive action, migration, public contracts, concurrency, distributed coordination, and rollback difficulty; define acceptance evidence before implementation review.
  • Record whether direct review suffices. If a panel is justified, apply the linked protocol to classify the pass, freeze scope, select distinct questions, and record coverage without sharing provisional findings.
  • Keep the review read-only. Permit only host-approved caches or build artifacts; do not edit tracked files, create tasks, commit, push, deploy, or repair findings.
2. Trace Requirements into Implementation
  • Enumerate every authoritative task requirement and acceptance criterion, plus every required approved-plan item. Map each to concrete implementation and independent behavioral evidence; mark task and plan items COMPLETE, DEVIATED, OMITTED, or UNPROVEN and acceptance PASS, FAIL, or UNPROVEN. Author claims, checked boxes, commits, and code presence are not completion evidence.
  • Inspect changed files and only the unchanged definitions, consumers, interfaces, tests, migrations, and registration needed to prove an affected path.
  • Verify each required plan item was implemented and works in its intended runtime path. Treat unexplained omissions as unmet; accept DEVIATED only when explicit evidence proves the alternative fully preserves the task, protected outcome, constraints, and acceptance. Distinguish justified deviation from stale or proposed documentation.
  • Compare the user-observable baseline with the delivery. Existing screens, copy, styles, navigation, interaction order, focus, accessibility, and user scenarios may change only when a specific task requirement authorizes that change; otherwise treat any delta as a regression. Additive screens, copy, controls, and scenarios also require a task-grounded purpose and authorized scope; list each with its trigger, rationale, and evidence.
  • Trace each critical scenario from actor trigger through entrypoint, runtime wiring, usage context, and observable outcome; include first meaningful use, material failure, recovery, and repetition where relevant.
  • Confirm new components, routes, commands, handlers, jobs, events, and configuration are registered and discoverable at runtime.
  • Within affected behavior, inspect applicable boundaries, collections, state transitions, duplicates, ordering, numeric behavior, empty and maximum inputs, errors, retries, idempotency, cancellation, timeouts, rollback, and cleanup.
  • Within affected async paths, inspect shared state, transactions, races, lock ordering, and blocking work.
3. Review Safety, Contracts, and Simplicity
  • Within affected paths, inspect applicable authentication, authorization, ownership, validation, injection, secrets, sensitive data, logging, and destructive-operation guards.
  • For changed destructive behavior, require recovery, rollback, blast-radius, environment or authorization, and preview or dry-run evidence; justify infeasible controls.
  • Verify changed API, event, schema, configuration, serialization, and storage producers and consumers, including names, payloads, registration, ordering, and compatibility. For changed semantic values and closed sets--such as states, roles, permissions, event names, error codes, configuration keys, feature identifiers, limits, timeouts, and routing keys--require one authoritative owner shared by every in-scope producer and consumer through the repository-standard mechanism (for example a typed union, enum, constant set, value object, schema, typed configuration, or generated contract). Accept a harmless one-off local literal when it creates no duplication, invalid-state, or drift risk.
  • Verify migrations, backfills, defaults, indexes, deployment ordering, and mixed-version behavior when persisted or distributed state changes.
  • Check ownership and cleanup of files, streams, sessions, connections, processes, subscriptions, and temporary artifacts on success and failure.
  • Inspect only architecture and policy boundaries crossed or changed. Verify that responsibility, dependency direction, contracts, state, lifecycle, and failure ownership remain coherent with the approved architecture or the simplest established repository mechanism. Apply every current authoritative project policy or ADR in the change-scoped ledger, including project-defined logging (logger, structured fields, levels, correlation, and redaction) and error handling (taxonomy, types or codes, boundary mapping, propagation, retry, and recovery) when affected; accept deviation only with explicit approval and evidence that scoped acceptance remains intact. Do not turn adjacent architecture or policy compliance into an audit.
  • Trace the owning correction across in-scope entrypoints, producers, consumers, registration, state transitions, and material failure/recovery paths. Reject symptom masking, caller special cases, side channels, and accidental ordering/timing/data dependencies. Tactical containment requires explicit intent or immediate safety, an owner, removal condition, and durable follow-up; stop at the causal business scope.
  • When code is replaced, verify old implementations, signatures, aliases, re-exports, shims, adapters, flags, dual paths, and files are removed and callers migrated. Retain compatibility only for a supported contract with an owner and bounded removal condition.
  • Inspect superseded constraints, configuration, schemas, states, permissions, metrics, and rollout scaffolding in the changed capability. Require proven supersession before removal; otherwise record retention evidence or a temporary owner and removal condition.
  • For added or materially expanded generic mechanisms, compare credible simpler alternatives against the exact contract; stop once an existing mechanism is sufficient. Investigate a new package only when a material gap remains. Record REUSE_EXISTING, ADOPT_PACKAGE, KEEP_CUSTOM, DELETE, or MERGE with local evidence and, for external semantics, official sources; assess material security, maintenance, license, bundle/runtime, API-stability, migration, and wrapper costs. Prefer the lowest-lifecycle-cost complete fit; do not add a dependency for compact domain logic or when its residual wrapper is no smaller or safer, and inspect only mechanisms changed by or necessary to the delivery.
  • Simplicity: Require the minimum sufficient diff and simplest correct, efficient algorithm. Reject needless duplication, files, layers, abstractions, dependencies, configuration, branches, compatibility paths, or custom machinery when existing mechanisms suffice; never trade away safeguards or maintainability.
Show full SKILL.md (1,208 more words)Show less
4. Verify Tests, Documentation, and Operations
  • Build one change-scoped test decision ledger from requirements, approved plan, changed behavior, and affected tests. For every material risk and affected test, record existing proof, independent oracle, gate and result, level rationale, and KEEP, ADD, UPDATE, MERGE, DELETE, or justified NO_TEST; verify planned actions were actually completed and explain evidence-backed deviations.
  • Rank changed business risks by likelihood, impact, blast radius, reversibility, and regression history. For configuration, queries, schemas, permissions, transactions, or recovery, identify the business failure the test detects; NO_TEST must name existing proof, another control, or accepted residual risk.
  • Test value and boundary: Require every test to detect a concrete defect in this product's business logic and name the protected business outcome. Prefer E2E through user or external-system boundaries; use integration or unit tests only for business scenarios difficult to exercise reliably through E2E. Reject platform, trivial-wiring, implementation-detail, and duplicate proof with no distinct business failure signal.
  • UI test locators: Use stable project-native semantic locators (roles, accessible names, labels) or explicit IDs/test hooks according to the observable contract and locale strategy. Avoid styling, position, timing, and incidental structure. Treat exact-copy assertions separately when copy is a requirement; do not require product edits solely to add hooks when a robust semantic locator exists.
  • Validate each ledger decision against defect sensitivity, assertions, success and failure paths, authorization, boundaries, data integrity, over-mocking, snapshots, flakes, shared state, time, randomness, order dependence, and CI placement. Assign DELETE to obsolete, duplicate, trivial, implementation-detail, or immaterial proof and MERGE when its unique value survives consolidation; preserve replacement traceability and never retain superseded tests, fixtures, helpers, snapshots, or gates by inertia.
  • Check required versus diagnostic gate placement, visible skips, retries and quarantine, and any review or retirement trigger for temporary characterization, migration, compatibility, incident, or workaround evidence. Quarantine is an execution state, not a portfolio action, and must not become a silent pass.
  • Discover commands from repository docs, tool configuration, and manifests before justified fallback. Run narrow checks first, then required build, lint, type, test, migration, and smoke gates with CI-safe options.
  • Record command source, exit status, actual executed scope, and limitations. Confirm required scenarios ran; zero selected tests or skipped suites do not prove acceptance. Attribute failures to change, baseline, or environment.
  • Verify user-visible acceptance from the other side when static proof is insufficient, including material failure and recovery; for applicable UI, check keyboard, focus, accessible names, motion, responsive states, copy, and localization.
  • Review only documentation and comments changed by or required for the scoped business change; classify each as KEEP, ADD, UPDATE, DELETE, or MERGE. Delete or merge only when canonical coverage preserves every needed audience task and contract.
  • Verify documentation SSOT and hierarchy: the delivery updates the narrowest canonical owner, links rather than copies rules, reuses suitable documents, and removes superseded references. Report violations without editing or auditing unrelated documentation.
  • Reject documentation filler, repeated summaries, speculation, and code restatement. Preserve audience-needed intent, contracts, actions, constraints, and minimal verified examples.
  • Keep volatile versions, paths, defaults, counts, commands, generated output, and current-state data in authoritative code, configuration, or generated sources where practical. Otherwise require the source, scope, and owner or generation/update trigger.
  • Verify affected API and configuration references, examples, migrations, runbooks, operator steps, and comments against implementation and requirements; comments explain enduring intent or constraints rather than syntax.
  • Check logs, metrics, traces, health signals, feature controls, deployment order, rollback, and recovery where the change creates operational risk.
5. Challenge and Synthesize
  • When selected, run the independent panel under its linked protocol; otherwise record None and use direct evidence. Treat suggestions as candidates requiring verification.
  • Verify each candidate against code, commands, behavior, declared intent, or authoritative documentation; trace symptom to causal path and violated contract, and reject subjective or symptom-only claims.
  • Accept a finding only when the diff introduced, exposed, or worsened it; it violates scoped acceptance; or the change caused a required-gate failure. Treat other issues only as limitations when they block acceptance; never recommend their repair.
  • Apply a materiality and acceptable-alternative gate to every in-scope candidate. Ask whether it proves a concrete user, business, safety, operational, delivery, or lifecycle impact at the evidenced project scale. Reject nitpicks, personal taste, theoretical purity, generic best practice, hypothetical scale, and an implementation that is merely different when the current tradeoff is reasonable. When several approaches are valid, require the outcome or constraint rather than one preferred design.
  • Research corrections after local evidence establishes a defect; investigate reuse alternatives when the changed generic mechanism has a material capability gap or lifecycle cost. Prefer repository mechanisms. Verify externally dependent choices against official version-matched documentation or primary engineering sources, citing the supported claim and tradeoff. Local evidence suffices for local business defects. Mark unsupported external claims UNVERIFIED; review does not authorize repair.
  • Deduplicate by root cause, preserve the strongest evidence and widest demonstrated impact, and recommend one smallest sufficient correction.
  • Resolve contradictions through direct evidence; carry material unresolved gaps into the verdict or residual risk.
  • Classify findings P0 catastrophic, P1 release-blocking, P2 important non-blocking, or P3 minor actionable.
  • Bind the final verdict to the actual reviewed bytes, relevant dirty/configuration state, and execution environment; after corrections, reassess affected findings and dependent acceptance without automatically repeating unrelated review.
  • Use FAIL for unresolved P0/P1, a required task or plan item that is OMITTED or demonstrably incorrect, unmet acceptance, an unauthorized change to existing user experience, a change-caused required-gate failure, or demonstrated unsafe high-risk behavior. Use CONCERNS only for explicit non-blocking risk. Use PASS only when every required task and plan item is COMPLETE or evidence-backed DEVIATED, every acceptance criterion passes, and all required evidence is complete.
  • Use BLOCKED when a required task or plan item remains UNPROVEN, or a required lens, specialist, safety environment, authoritative contract, or acceptance prerequisite has no credible replacement; report the coverage gap, not a product defect.

Self-Check

  • Reconcile before returning. Check item-level evidence, requirement coverage, contradictions, scope, verdict, and applicable cleanup. Correct the report or authorized artifacts. Reuse valid evidence; do not automatically rescan the repository or rerun successful commands. Repeat checks only for relevant changes, failures, or unresolved evidence. Disclose remaining gaps.

Output Contract

Report in the user's language, in this order; label all five fields and state each fact once. Use controlled plain language: one fact per sentence, usually under 20 words, active voice, and one term per concept, with no synonyms for verdicts, IDs, or states. Small results may use one line per field; omit empty tables and do not copy linked artifacts:

  1. Result: The exact skill-specific verdict token first, then the supported outcome.
  2. Scope: Reviewed/changed scope, exclusions, baseline, and material assumptions.
  3. Evidence: Skill-specific fields below; distinguish facts, inferences, and unverified claims. Link artifacts; use tables when useful.
  4. Verification: Checks/results, unavailable evidence, and applicable cleanup/external state.
  5. Completion: Checklist: X/Y complete; Incomplete: None or each UNPROVEN item's reason, outcome impact, and exact next action; residual risks and required decisions.

Skill-specific evidence: Task/plan requirement → implementation → behavioral evidence → status; scope/base/head and initial/follow-up review state. Include authorized UX changes and additive surfaces, applicable policy/ADR compliance, reuse and subtraction decisions, selected independent lenses and coverage, and test/documentation actions. Each finding needs priority, location, affected business behavior, change-causal evidence, violated contract, material impact, and smallest sufficient correction; allow equivalent solutions. Use None when no candidate survives the evidence gates.

© levnikolaevich, 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 plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer of levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills.

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

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 0ce8796

Compare with similar skills

Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer 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.

Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer this skilllevnikolaevich/claude-code-skills574—~5.8kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Prediction Market Risk Reviewaffaan-m/ECC276k1 repos~471Automated safety check: PassMIT
Acceptance Evidence for Deliverieslobehub/lobehub83k—~9.7kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Find Regression Riskdotnet/maui23k—~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Review Pending PR Reviewsnrwl/nx29k—~3.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Reviewthedaviddias/Front-End-Checklist74k—~556Automated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Review prediction-market, basket, oracle, and trading-agent workflows for compliance, safety, data-quality, privacy, and execution risk.

    276k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~471 tokens
    Data & AnalyticsAuto-check passed
  • Verifies a delivery end to end by driving the real product on a CLI, web, desktop or iOS Simulator surface, capturing evidence and publishing a round with the lh CLI.

    83k GitHub stars~9.7k tokensUpdated today
    Testing & QAAuto-check passed
  • Official

    Checks a pull request for lines that undo a recent bug fix by comparing what the PR removes with what labeled bug-fix PRs added to the same files.

    23k GitHub stars~1.1k tokensUpdated yesterday
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Review, grill, edit, and post pending PR review drafts saved by /review-pr (or its batch/cron runners).

    29k GitHub stars~3.9k tokensUpdated yesterday
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Review

    thedaviddias/Front-End-Checklist

    A skill your agent uses when applies to product pages, local business pages, recipes, apps, books, and any page that aggregates user reviews.

    74k GitHub stars~556 tokensUpdated 4 days ago
    Marketing & SEOAuto-check passed
  • Diff Correctness Review

    codewhale-hq/Codewhale

    Reviews a diff or pull request for correctness by reading the callers and contracts around the change, then ranks line-anchored findings and gives a merge-risk verdict.

    41k GitHub stars~840 tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

All 31 skills in this repo
  • Ln 53 Documentation Auditor

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Audits documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only.

    574 GitHub stars~3.8k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 81 Skill Reviewer

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Reviews skill instructions, trigger boundaries and distribution contracts; not product code.

    574 GitHub stars~3.5k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 11 Opportunity Evaluator

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Evaluates new product opportunities through demand, channels and economics before committing to build.

    574 GitHub stars~3k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 12 Product Requirements Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Defines product requirements, business rules and acceptance criteria for a committed intent; edits product docs only.

    574 GitHub stars~1.9k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 13 Interaction Design Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Designs user flows, interaction states and mockups for a defined product scope; does not implement UI code.

    574 GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 21 System Design Baseline Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Defines measurable architecture drivers and constraints before system design; edits architecture docs only.

    574 GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Questions about Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer

What does Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer do?

Reviews a completed change for acceptance, regressions and release risk; read-only, not a whole-codebase audit. Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer is an agent skill from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills. Reviews a completed change for acceptance, regressions and release risk; read-only, not a whole-codebase audit.

How do I install Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-52-delivery-reviewer -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills) into .claude/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer in Codex?

Run `npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-52-delivery-reviewer -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills) into .agents/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer 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 levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-52-delivery-reviewer -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer, .gemini/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer, .github/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer and .opencode/skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer in your project.

What does Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer is instructions for the agent only.

Does Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer 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 Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer use?

Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer 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 Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer use?

About 5.8k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 23k 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 1.3k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer: Prediction Market Risk Review (affaan-m/ECC, 276k stars), Acceptance Evidence for Deliveries (lobehub/lobehub, 83k stars), Find Regression Risk (dotnet/maui, 23k stars) and Review Pending PR Reviews (nrwl/nx, 29k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Ln 52 Delivery Reviewer?

levnikolaevich (a GitHub user) maintains it in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills, which has 574 GitHub stars. The repository holds 31 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 5, 2026.

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