Individual skill
referee
Reviews a change against intent, design, correctness, complexity, security, tests, maintainability, and repository conventions. Use for code, diffs, pull requests, or implementation reviews that should produce only evidence-backed actionable findings.
skills/referee/SKILL.md
Source commit cfa78f744564cec2c5aaf0cbacbada58d79b9e59
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- No
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- No
- Observed behavior
- Not checked yet
- Last checked
- Nov 6, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 12
- Repository last updated
- Nov 2, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- agent-skills Repository topic
- agentic-coding Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- ai-coding Repository topic
- code-review Repository topic
- coding-agents Repository topic
- debugging Repository topic
- developer-productivity Repository topic
- developer-tools Repository topic
- llm Repository topic
- design Derived category
- security Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 10,169 bytesSKILL.mdcore · 10,169 bytesreferences/finding-format.mddoc · 4,726 bytesreferences/research.mddoc · 2,453 bytesreferences/review-protocol.mddoc · 2,410 bytes
Read excerpt
# referee: review like you didn't write it
Two axes, in order: **Intent**: did this actually solve the requested
problem, completely, without extras? Then **quality**: is it correct,
maintainable, safe, proportionate? A beautiful implementation of the
wrong thing fails. Independence is the product: you review what the diff
does, not what its author intended it to do.
## Prerequisites
The complete diff plus the written acceptance criteria (brief, plan, or
issue) it claims to satisfy. Recover missing criteria from the user request, issue, or repository first.
If intent remains unknown, continue a bounded correctness review and name that
gap; request only the evidence needed for an intent verdict.