flow-next-impl-review
Provides expert-level implementation reviews for code changes and pull requests.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/flow-next-impl-review && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/6429" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/flow-next-impl-review && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/flow-next-impl-review
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
John Carmack-level implementation review via RepoPrompt or Codex. Use when reviewing code changes, PRs, or implementations. Triggers on /flow-next:impl-review.Key capabilities
- →Execute multi-backend code walkthroughs
- →Audit PRs for architectural integrity
- →Triage implementation drift against specifications
- →Validate code changes against backend-specific rules
How it works
Orchestrates a multi-stage review process that delegates deep analysis to specialized backends based on branch context and configuration.
Inputs & outputs
When to use flow-next-impl-review
- →Reviewing pull requests
- →Auditing code implementation
- →Validating architectural changes
- →Conducting deep code walkthroughs
About this skill
Implementation Review Mode
Workflow is backend-split. Read workflow-common.md for Phase 0 (backend detection + philosophy + trivial-diff triage), then read ONLY the file matching your active backend. The opt-in --deep/--validate/--interactive phase detail (including the phase-ordering matrix) lives in optional-phases.md, loaded only when a flag fires:
BACKEND=codex→ workflow-codex.mdBACKEND=copilot→ workflow-copilot.mdBACKEND=cursor→ workflow-cursor.mdBACKEND=host→ workflow-host.mdBACKEND=rp→ workflow-rp.md
Do not load the others — only the active backend's file is needed. Each backend file carries its own Critical Rules and anti-patterns.
Conduct a John Carmack-level review of implementation changes on the current branch.
Role: Code Review Coordinator (NOT the reviewer)
Backends (branch on the Phase 0 RP_ELIGIBLE probe):
- When
RP_ELIGIBLE=1: RepoPrompt (rp), Codex CLI (codex), GitHub Copilot CLI (copilot), Cursor CLI (cursor), or host-native (host) - When
RP_ELIGIBLE=0: Codex CLI (codex), GitHub Copilot CLI (copilot), Cursor CLI (cursor), or host-native (host) — rp is macOS-only; never list it in guidance you surface (--review=rpstays accepted)
Preamble — execute Phase 0 exactly once
The executable Phase 0 lives in workflow-common.md §"Phase 0: Backend Detection" — Read it and execute it ONCE, before any other bash in this skill. It defines $FLOWCTL (bundled — NOT installed globally; which flowctl fails, expected), probes RP_ELIGIBLE, resolves $BACKEND via the single flowctl review-backend call, and handles the ASK / none cases. Every later bash block here (triage, deep-pass selection) uses the $FLOWCTL it defines. Never invoke flowctl review-backend a second time in the same run.
Exception: a --review=<backend> argument (see Backend Selection below) wins — when present, set BACKEND from the flag and skip Phase 0's review-backend call + ASK handling (still run its $FLOWCTL / RP_ELIGIBLE setup lines).
When RP_ELIGIBLE=0 (not macOS, no supported RepoPrompt CLI), never steer the user toward rp: every backend summary, recommendation, or override hint you surface presents only the runnable configured backends codex, copilot, cursor, host (plus none). export is an explicit one-off review MODE (--review=export), not a configured backend — never present it as one. Suppression is not a ban: an explicit --review=rp, FLOW_REVIEW_BACKEND=rp, or review.backend=rp still resolves to rp and errors at runtime via require_rp_cli().
Backend Selection
Priority (first match wins):
--review=rp|codex|copilot|cursor|host|export|noneargumentFLOW_REVIEW_BACKENDenv var — bare backend (rp,codex,copilot,cursor,host,none) OR spec form (codex:gpt-5.4:xhigh,copilot:claude-opus-4.5,cursor:gpt-5.5-high);hostis bare-only (host:<model>is rejected).flow/config.json→review.backend(same bare / spec forms)- Error - no auto-detection
Parse from arguments first
Check $ARGUMENTS for:
--review=rpor--review rp→ use rp--review=codexor--review codex→ use codex--review=copilotor--review copilot→ use copilot--review=cursoror--review cursor→ use cursor--review=hostor--review host→ use host--review=exportor--review export→ use export--review=noneor--review none→ skip review
If found, use that backend and skip all other detection.
Otherwise: Phase 0 resolves it
No --review flag → $BACKEND comes from workflow-common.md Phase 0 (executed once per the Preamble): the single flowctl review-backend "$REVIEW_ID" call with ASK handling included. Do not re-resolve here.
Backend detail (model / effort / spec grammar) — on demand
The per-backend "at a glance" descriptions, the backend[:model[:effort]] spec grammar, and the FLOW_REVIEW_BACKEND spec-form examples live in references/backend-specs.md. Read it only when you must surface backend guidance to the user or resolve a model/effort spec — a normal review already has $BACKEND and needs nothing from it. When RP_ELIGIBLE=0, omit the rp line from any guidance you surface (explicit --review=rp still honored).
Critical Rules
Per-backend rules for rp, codex, copilot, and cursor live at the top of each workflow-<backend>.md — read the active backend's file (routing table above) and follow its Critical Rules section.
For host backend (fn-123 R5 / fn-126):
host is bare-only. After selection, read workflow-host.md.
The review must use a fresh, tool-enforced read-only reviewer from a different
model family and fail closed when no cross-family pin is available.
For all backends:
- If
REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATHset: write receipt after review (any verdict) - Any failure → output
<promise>RETRY</promise>and stop
Hard invariants:
- The coordinator never authors a verdict. A SHIP with no backend response behind it has broken this.
- One backend per review. A transcript that dispatches a second backend after the first answered has broken this.
- Review is never skipped without consent. A
nonebackend that ends the run without the user's consent has broken this.
Input
Arguments: $ARGUMENTS
Format: [task ID] [--base <commit>] [--validate] [--deep[=passes]] [--interactive] [focus areas]
--base <commit>- Compare against this commit instead of main/master (for task-scoped reviews)--validate- After NEEDS_WORK verdict, run a validator pass that drops false-positive findings (fn-32.1, opt-in)--deep/--deep=<passes>- Run additional specialized passes (adversarial / security / performance) after primary review (fn-32.2, opt-in)--interactive- On NEEDS_WORK, walk through each finding with the user (Apply/Defer/Skip/Acknowledge) (fn-32.3, opt-in, Ralph-incompatible)- Task ID - Optional, for context and receipt tracking
- Focus areas - Optional, specific areas to examine
Scope behavior:
- With
--base: Reviews only changes since that commit (task-scoped) - Without
--base: Reviews entire branch vs main/master (full branch review)
Opt-in flags (fn-32):
--validate— adds a validator pass on NEEDS_WORK that re-checks each finding for false positives. All findings dropping upgrades verdict to SHIP.FLOW_VALIDATE_REVIEW=1env var — enables--validatesession-wide (works in Ralph).--deep— adds adversarial pass always + security/performance auto-enabled per diff paths.--deep=adversarial,securityrestricts to listed passes.FLOW_REVIEW_DEEP=1env var — enables--deepsession-wide (works in Ralph).--interactive— per-finding walkthrough on NEEDS_WORK. No env var form — per-invocation only, always hard-errors in Ralph mode (REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATHorFLOW_RALPH=1) to prevent accidental autonomous engagement.- Default review behavior (no flags) is unchanged.
Workflow
REPO_ROOT="$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)"
Step 0: Parse Arguments
Parse $ARGUMENTS for:
--base <commit>→BASE_COMMIT(if provided, use for scoped diff)--no-triage→ setTRIAGE_DISABLED=1(skip trivial-diff pre-check)--validate→ setVALIDATE=true(fn-32.1 validator pass on NEEDS_WORK)--deep/--deep=<passes>→ setDEEP=true+ optionalDEEP_PASSESCSV (fn-32.2)--interactive→ setINTERACTIVE=true(fn-32.3 per-finding walkthrough on NEEDS_WORK; Ralph-blocked)- First positional arg matching
fn-*→TASK_ID - Remaining args → focus areas
If --base not provided, BASE_COMMIT stays empty (will fall back to main/master).
Opt-in flags + env vars — ONE parse fence (fn-110) for --validate / --deep / --interactive:
VALIDATE=false
DEEP=false
DEEP_PASSES="" # optional CSV: "adversarial,security"
INTERACTIVE=false
for arg in $ARGUMENTS; do
case "$arg" in
--validate) VALIDATE=true ;;
--deep) DEEP=true ;;
--deep=*) DEEP=true; DEEP_PASSES="${arg#--deep=}" ;;
--interactive) INTERACTIVE=true ;;
esac
done
# Env opt-ins (Ralph-friendly). --interactive has NO env var form — per-invocation only.
if [[ "${FLOW_VALIDATE_REVIEW:-}" == "1" ]]; then
VALIDATE=true
fi
if [[ "${FLOW_REVIEW_DEEP:-}" == "1" ]]; then
DEEP=true
fi
# Ralph-block (fn-32.3): Ralph must never engage interactive.
if [[ "$INTERACTIVE" == "true" ]]; then
if [[ -n "${REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH:-}" || "${FLOW_RALPH:-}" == "1" ]]; then
echo "Error: --interactive requires a user at the terminal; not compatible with Ralph mode (REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH or FLOW_RALPH detected)." >&2
exit 2
fi
fi
if [[ "$DEEP" == "true" || "$VALIDATE" == "true" || "$INTERACTIVE" == "true" ]]; then
echo "OPTIONAL PHASES ACTIVE — STOP. Read optional-phases.md (deep=$DEEP validate=$VALIDATE interactive=$INTERACTIVE) before continuing."
fi
When that sentinel prints, STOP and Read optional-phases.md before any further step — it owns the phase-ordering + flag-combination matrix, the deep-pass selection bash, the validator dispatch, and the walkthrough steps (per-finding loop detail in walkthrough.md, pass prompt templates in deep-passes.md). All three phases are default-OFF: when no flag fires, run the primary review only and write no validator / deep_passes / walkthrough receipt keys.
Step 0.5: Trivial-diff triage (fn-29.6)
Before invoking the configured backend, run a fast pre-check that short-circuits
lockfile-only, docs-only, release-chore, and generated-file diffs. On SKIP, the
receipt is written with mode: "triage_skip" / verdict: "SHIP" and the
expensive backend call is skipped ent
Content truncated.
When not to use it
- →Running code-style linting only
- →Automating bug-fix generation
Prerequisites
Limitations
- →Requires active backend connection
- →Dependent on specific workflow backend files
How it compares
It enforces a rigorous, multi-backend review standard akin to high-level architectural walkthroughs rather than simple code linting.
Compared to similar skills
flow-next-impl-review side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| flow-next-impl-review (this skill) | 1 | 2mo | Review | Advanced |
| architect-review | 109 | 4mo | No flags | Advanced |
| solid-principles | 57 | 9mo | No flags | Intermediate |
| codex | 32 | 2mo | Review | Advanced |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
More by gmickel
View all by gmickel →You might also like
architect-review
sickn33
Master software architect specializing in modern architecture patterns, clean architecture, microservices, event-driven systems, and DDD. Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability. Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions.
solid-principles
SmidigStorm
Enforce SOLID principles (Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov Substitution, Interface Segregation, Dependency Inversion) in object-oriented design. Use when writing or reviewing classes and modules.
codex
Lucklyric
Invoke Codex CLI for complex coding tasks requiring high reasoning capabilities. This skill should be invoked when users explicitly mention "Codex", request complex implementation challenges, advanced reasoning, or need high-reasoning model assistance. Automatically triggers on codex-related requests and supports session continuation for iterative development.
error-handling-patterns
wshobson
Master error handling patterns across languages including exceptions, Result types, error propagation, and graceful degradation to build resilient applications. Use when implementing error handling, designing APIs, or improving application reliability.
deepwiki-rs
sopaco
AI-powered Rust documentation generation engine for comprehensive codebase analysis, C4 architecture diagrams, and automated technical documentation. Use when Claude needs to analyze source code, understand software architecture, generate technical specs, or create professional documentation from any programming language.
senior-fullstack
davila7
Comprehensive fullstack development skill for building complete web applications with React, Next.js, Node.js, GraphQL, and PostgreSQL. Includes project scaffolding, code quality analysis, architecture patterns, and complete tech stack guidance. Use when building new projects, analyzing code quality, implementing design patterns, or setting up development workflows.