Agent skill

Jev Review

by NiazMorshed2007 in NiazMorshed2007/jev-review

Run Jev Review as a repeated scalar feedback loop during nontrivial coding work.

MITAuto-check passedAgent Workflows

Install Jev Review

skills CLI
$ npx skills add NiazMorshed2007/jev-review --skill jev-review -a claude-code

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

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install NiazMorshed2007/jev-review jev-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/NiazMorshed2007/jev-review.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/jev-review .claude/skills/jev-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
jev-review
GitHub stars
239
Token cost
~1.4k tokens
SKILL.md length
637 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
1
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Run Jev Review as a repeated scalar feedback loop during nontrivial coding work.

  • Works in 10 steps: Understand the user's requirements,… → Implement a coherent slice and run the… → Call jev_review to establish or refresh… → …
  • Agent Workflows work in your project
  • SKILL.md covers The operating model, Required review loop, When to call and Keep comparisons useful, plus 1 more section
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Jev Review is an agent skill from NiazMorshed2007/jev-review. Run Jev Review as a repeated scalar feedback loop during nontrivial coding work. Establish a score baseline after a coherent implementation, diagnose weak dimensions yourself, improve the code, validate it, and rescore with the previous evaluation until important metrics improve or no further justified change remains.

Its SKILL.md is about 1.4k 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 Agent Workflows. It works with Model Context Protocol and TypeScript. The repository describes itself as: Local-first MCP plugin for continuous software-quality review by AI coding agents, powered by Jev. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Agent Workflows work in your project

Example prompts

  • “/jev-review”

Workflow steps

10 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Understand the user's requirements, invariants, and repository conventions.
  2. Implement a coherent slice and run the relevant tests or checks.
  3. Call jev_review to establish or refresh the baseline.
  4. Identify the weakest important metrics, prioritizing correctness, cognitive complexity, changeability, coupling, modularity, abstraction…
  5. Inspect the code and form a concrete hypothesis for what is lowering one or more scores.
  6. Make the smallest justified improvement that addresses that hypothesis. Do not ask Jev to write or explain the fix.
  7. Run relevant validation again.
  8. Call jev_review again with the updated implementation and the prior response in previousEvaluation.
  9. Check whether targeted scores improved and whether any other dimension regressed.
  10. Repeat when an important weak metric remains and another evidence-based improvement is available.

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 57690af. 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 (its code samples are json).

    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

Jev Review loads about 1.4k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 83 tokens; SKILL.md has 637 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~83
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~1.4k

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 NiazMorshed2007/jev-review at commit 57690af, republished under its MIT licence (© NiazMorshed2007). 637 words, ~1,358 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/jev-review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
jev-review
description
Run Jev Review as a repeated scalar feedback loop during nontrivial coding work. Establish a score baseline after a coherent implementation, diagnose weak dimensions yourself, improve the code, validate it, and rescore with the previous evaluation until important metrics improve or no further justified change remains.

Jev Review

Use jev_review as an iterative engineering-quality signal, not as a narrative code reviewer. The coding agent owns diagnosis, implementation, testing, and final judgment. Jev evaluates the supplied state and returns structured scores; it never edits files.

The operating model

The loop is:

text
implement → validate → score → inspect → form a hypothesis → improve → validate → rescore

A first evaluation is a baseline, not the end of the review. For a nontrivial task, continue the loop after meaningful changes and use score movement to test whether the implementation actually improved.

Jev does not generate a prose explanation of why a score is low. Treat these as the primary signals:

  • Per-metric score
  • Confidence
  • Change from the previous evaluation
  • Meaningful improvements and regressions

Any summaries, priority reasons, or issue labels in the tool response are predefined rubric/category hints. They are not a root-cause analysis from Jev and may not identify the exact problematic code. Inspect the implementation and requirements yourself to determine why a dimension is weak.

Required review loop

For every nontrivial coding task:

  1. Understand the user's requirements, invariants, and repository conventions.
  2. Implement a coherent slice and run the relevant tests or checks.
  3. Call jev_review to establish or refresh the baseline.
  4. Identify the weakest important metrics, prioritizing correctness, cognitive complexity, changeability, coupling, modularity, abstraction quality, tests, reliability, and security.
  5. Inspect the code and form a concrete hypothesis for what is lowering one or more scores.
  6. Make the smallest justified improvement that addresses that hypothesis. Do not ask Jev to write or explain the fix.
  7. Run relevant validation again.
  8. Call jev_review again with the updated implementation and the prior response in previousEvaluation.
  9. Check whether targeted scores improved and whether any other dimension regressed.
  10. Repeat when an important weak metric remains and another evidence-based improvement is available.

Do not stop merely because jev_review was called once. When a targeted score does not improve, reconsider the diagnosis instead of making random cosmetic changes. Try a different justified improvement and rescore, or determine from the code, confidence, and requirements that the metric should not drive another change.

When to call

Call jev_review:

  • After the first coherent implementation exists
  • After each meaningful implementation slice
  • After each review-driven improvement
  • After changes to control flow, state, dependencies, public contracts, tests, or security-sensitive behavior
  • Before final handoff when the previous evaluation no longer describes the current code

Interim reviews may precede the full test suite, but the final evaluation should follow the project's normal validation. Do not call on an unchanged implementation, formatting-only noise, or context too thin to judge.

Show full SKILL.md (219 more words)Show less

Keep comparisons useful

Use task and the current diff in most calls. Add full files only when surrounding behavior is necessary. Use repositoryContext for relevant architecture, conventions, invariants, and test results.

On a follow-up call:

  • Pass the previous tool response unchanged as previousEvaluation.
  • Send the current implementation state, not the obsolete pre-fix diff.
  • Keep the task and context scope reasonably consistent so score deltas remain comparable.
  • Include newly relevant tests, callers, or contracts when they affect the judgment.

Example:

json
{
  "task": "The requested behavior and acceptance constraints",
  "diff": "The current implementation diff after the latest changes",
  "files": [
    {
      "path": "src/example.ts",
      "content": "Only include surrounding code needed to judge the change"
    }
  ],
  "repositoryContext": "Relevant conventions, invariants, and validation results",
  "previousEvaluation": {}
}

If Jev reports that its input limit was exceeded, remove unrelated content or split the implementation into coherent review slices. Do not blindly truncate contracts, callers, or tests needed to judge the change.

Never send secrets, credentials, private keys, environment files, generated output, vendored code, or unrelated repository content.

Stopping conditions

Stop the loop when:

  • The implementation satisfies the user's requirements and normal validation passes.
  • Important targeted metrics improved and no meaningful regression was introduced.
  • Remaining weak or low-confidence metrics have no concrete, justified improvement available.
  • Further score-seeking changes would add scope, complexity, coupling, or behavioral risk.

Scores are evidence, not objectives to game. Never improve a score by adding speculative architecture, unnecessary abstraction, meaningless tests or comments, mechanical file splitting, scope expansion, or behavior changes the user did not request. Correctness and the user's actual requirements always come first.

© NiazMorshed2007, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in skills/jev-review of NiazMorshed2007/jev-review.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 57690af

Compare with similar skills

Jev 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.

Jev Review compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Jev Review this skillNiazMorshed2007/jev-review239—~1.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Chatgpt App Builderalpic-ai/skybridge2.2k—~1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Spec Driven Developzhu1090093659/deepseek-pp1.9k—~6.9kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Skybridgealpic-ai/skybridge2.2k—~923Automated safety check: PassMIT
Simplifytruffle-ai/dexto651—~1kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Bringupjenissimo/bottleship152—~2.9kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0

Similar skills

  • Chatgpt App Builder

    alpic-ai/skybridge

    Guide developers through creating and updating ChatGPT plugins.

    2.2k GitHub stars~1k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Spec Driven Develop

    zhu1090093659/deepseek-pp

    Automates pre-development workflow for large-scale complex tasks.

    1.9k GitHub stars~6.9k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Skybridge

    alpic-ai/skybridge

    Guide developers through creating and updating ChatGPT plugins and MCP Apps.

    2.2k GitHub stars~923 tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Simplify

    truffle-ai/dexto

    Review changed code for reuse, quality, and efficiency, then fix any issues found.

    651 GitHub stars~1k tokensUpdated today
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Bringup

    jenissimo/bottleship

    Drive and observe the BottleShip emulator to bring up a game, using the AI-agent harness (window.BS.harness + bun tools/harness.ts).

    152 GitHub stars~2.9k tokensUpdated today
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Project Release

    swimmwatch/cloakbrowser-mcp

    Prepare, publish, verify, or recover a cloakbrowser-mcp release only when the user explicitly requests release work.

    164 GitHub stars~1.9k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed

Questions about Jev Review

What does Jev Review do?

Run Jev Review as a repeated scalar feedback loop during nontrivial coding work. Jev Review is an agent skill from NiazMorshed2007/jev-review. Run Jev Review as a repeated scalar feedback loop during nontrivial coding work.

When should I use Jev Review?

Jev Review fits situations like: agent Workflows work in your project.

How do I install Jev Review in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add NiazMorshed2007/jev-review --skill jev-review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/jev-review in NiazMorshed2007/jev-review) into .claude/skills/jev-review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Jev Review in Codex?

Run `npx skills add NiazMorshed2007/jev-review --skill jev-review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/jev-review in NiazMorshed2007/jev-review) into .agents/skills/jev-review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Jev 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 NiazMorshed2007/jev-review --skill jev-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/jev-review, .gemini/skills/jev-review, .github/skills/jev-review and .opencode/skills/jev-review in your project.

What does Jev Review need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Jev Review is instructions for the agent only.

Does Jev Review 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 Jev 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 Jev Review use?

Jev 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 Jev Review use?

About 1.4k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 5.4k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Jev Review?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Jev Review: Chatgpt App Builder (alpic-ai/skybridge, 2.2k stars), Spec Driven Develop (zhu1090093659/deepseek-pp, 1.9k stars), Skybridge (alpic-ai/skybridge, 2.2k stars) and Simplify (truffle-ai/dexto, 651 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Jev Review?

NiazMorshed2007 (a GitHub user) maintains it in NiazMorshed2007/jev-review, which has 239 GitHub stars. The repository was last updated on September 17, 2026.

Source: NiazMorshed2007/jev-review on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.