caveman-review

Generate one-line, location-specific code review comments with severity markers.

Updated Mar 11, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/selfagency/agentsy --skill caveman-review-selfagency
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: caveman-review
Source: https://github.com/selfagency/agentsy/tree/main/.agents/skills/caveman-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/selfagency/agentsy --skill caveman-review-selfagency

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Caveman-review eliminates noisy, verbose pull request feedback by producing compact, paste-ready comments that preserve the actionable signal.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Ultra-compressed review formatting: Outputs one finding per line in a strict L<line>: <severity> <problem>. <fix>. style.
  • Severity-aware guidance: Uses 🔴 bug, 🟡 risk, 🔵 nit, and ❓ q to distinguish incidents, fragility, style, and questions.
  • Noise reduction for PRs: Drops throat-clearing, hedging, restating the diff, and redundant approval language while keeping exact line numbers and symbol names.

Quick Start

Use caveman-review when you want concise PR feedback by prompting an AI with: "Review this PR using caveman-review format and comment with one actionable line per finding."

Frequently Asked Questions about caveman-review

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I write concise code review comments for a pull request diff?

Concise code review comments use a strict one-line format like `L<line>: <severity> <problem>. <fix>.` to directly state the issue and solution. This eliminates verbose feedback while preserving exact line numbers and actionable signal.

What is the best format for automated PR feedback that reduces noise?

The best format for automated PR feedback drops hedging and approval language, outputting one finding per line with severity labels like `🔴 bug` or `🟡 risk`. It directly states the problem and concrete fix without restating the diff.

How do I categorize pull request findings by severity in code review?

Categorize pull request findings using severity labels: `🔴 bug` for incidents, `🟡 risk` for fragility, `🔵 nit` for style, and `❓ q` for questions. This distinguishes critical issues from minor style nits in one-line comments.

Can I review multi-file PR changes with one-line actionable comments?

Yes, reviewing multi-file PR changes with one-line comments works by using the `<file>:L<line>:` structure. This preserves exact line numbers and backticked symbols across single and multiple file diffs while maintaining consistent formatting.

What should one-line code review comments avoid including?

One-line code review comments should avoid code writing, automated linting, approval language, and noisy phrasing like throat-clearing or hedging. They must strictly state the problem and concrete fix without restating the diff context.

Does the caveman-review format work for both single-file and multi-file diffs?

The caveman-review format works for both single-file and multi-file diffs by adapting its structure. Single files use `L<line>:` while multi-file changes use `<file>:L<line>:` to preserve exact locations across the entire PR diff.