Skip to content
Back to skills

Review Fix

ASecurity

Read the latest code review, plan fixes for all findings, then execute the fixes — all in one command. Produces a dated plan and execution log in .reviews/.

  • 57 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added October 17, 2026
developmenttypescriptpythongocode-reviewapifrontendbackend

Works with

  • api

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned October 17, 2026

npx -y skills add diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill --skill review-fix --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Review Fix?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Review Fix
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/diegosouzapw-review-fix/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/diegosouzapw-review-fix)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: review-fix
description: Read the latest code review, plan fixes for all findings, then execute the fixes — all in one command. Produces a dated plan and execution log in .reviews/.
---

# Review Fix — Plan & Execute from Last Review

Read the most recent `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review.md`, plan fixes for all findings
grouped by priority, then execute every planned fix with atomic commits. Produces
two artifacts: a **review-plan** and a **review-execution** log.

## Instructions

### Phase 0 — Find the Latest Review

1. Glob for `.reviews/*-review.md` and pick the most recent file by date.
2. Read the full review file. Parse every finding into a list of
   `{ severity, reviewer, file, line, description }` entries.
3. If no review file exists, tell the user to run `/code-review` first and stop.

### Phase 1 — Plan

Spawn **4 parallel planning agents** (Task tool, `subagent_type: Plan`) that each
receive the full findings list filtered to their scope. Each agent returns a
structured list of fix actions.

#### Agent scopes

| Agent         | Scope                                                  |
|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| **backend**   | Findings from Tina, Marcus, Priya, Carlos, Oscar that touch `cachibot/` |
| **frontend**  | Findings from Tina, Zoe, Luna that touch `frontend/src/` |
| **data**      | Findings from Carlos (storage/db layer)                |
| **tests**     | Findings from Derek (test coverage gaps)               |

> Findings that span multiple scopes go to every relevant agent.

Each planning agent must:

- Group related findings that can be fixed together (same file, same pattern).
- For each group, produce:
  - **What**: one-line summary of the change
  - **Files**: list of files to modify
  - **How**: 2-3 sentence implementation approach
  - **Severity**: highest severity in the group (Fix > Improve > Note)
  - **Risk**: Low / Medium / High (does this change behavior or just style?)
  - **Depends on**: other group IDs this group must wait for (if any)
- Order groups by: Fix severity first, then by dependency order.
- Skip any finding rated **Note** — notes are informational only.

After all 4 agents return, compile results into `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review-plan.md`:

```markdown
# Review Fix Plan — YYYY-MM-DD

**Source review:** `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review.md`
**Generated:** YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM

## Stats

| Severity | Findings | Planned groups |
|----------|----------|----------------|
| Fix      | N        | N              |
| Improve  | N        | N              |
| Note     | N        | (skipped)      |

## Execution Waves

Wave 1 (no dependencies):
- [B1] Backend: <summary>
- [F1] Frontend: <summary>

Wave 2 (depends on wave 1):
- [B2] Backend: <summary> (depends on B1)

...

## Detailed Plan

### [B1] <Summary>
- **Severity:** Fix
- **Risk:** Low
- **Files:** `path/to/file.py`
- **How:** Description of the fix approach
- **Findings addressed:**
  - Tina: `path/to/file.py:42` — original finding text
  - Marcus: `path/to/file.py:50` — original finding text
```

Print the plan summary (wave count, group count, severity breakdown) to the user,
then **immediately proceed to Phase 2** without waiting for approval.

### Phase 2 — Execute

Read the plan file. Execute fixes **wave by wave** — all groups in a wave run in
parallel, but waves run sequentially (wave 2 waits for wave 1 to finish).

For each group, spawn a Task agent (`subagent_type: general-purpose`) with:

- The group's detailed plan (What, Files, How)
- The original finding text for context
- Instruction to read each file before editing
- Instruction to make the minimal change that addresses the finding
- Instruction to run `ruff check --fix` and `ruff format` on any modified Python file
- Instruction to run `npm run lint -- --fix` on any modified TypeScript file (from `frontend/`)
- Instruction to NOT create new files unless the plan explicitly says to
- Instruction to NOT add tests (Derek findings are tracked but test writing is a separate task)

After each wave completes:

1. Verify no lint errors remain (`ruff check cachibot/` and `cd frontend && npm run lint`).
2. If lint fails, spawn a fix agent for the failing files before continuing.
3. Stage all changed files and create one commit per wave:
   ```
   Review fixes wave N: <comma-separated group IDs>

   Addresses findings from YYYY-MM-DD code review.
   Groups: [B1] summary, [F2] summary, ...

   Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
   ```

After all waves complete, write `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review-execution.md`:

```markdown
# Review Fix Execution — YYYY-MM-DD

**Plan:** `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review-plan.md`
**Source review:** `.reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review.md`

## Results

| Wave | Groups | Status  | Commit  |
|------|--------|---------|---------|
| 1    | B1, F1 | Done    | abc1234 |
| 2    | B2     | Done    | def5678 |

## Findings Addressed

| Severity | Planned | Fixed | Skipped | Reason          |
|----------|---------|-------|---------|-----------------|
| Fix      | N       | N     | N       |                 |
| Improve  | N       | N     | N       |                 |

## Group Details

### [B1] <Summary> — Done
- **Commit:** abc1234
- **Files changed:** `path/to/file.py`
- **Findings fixed:**
  - Tina: `path/to/file.py:42` — fixed
  - Marcus: `path/to/file.py:50` — fixed

### [F1] <Summary> — Skipped
- **Reason:** File was recently refactored, finding no longer applies
- **Findings skipped:**
  - Zoe: `frontend/src/Component.tsx:100` — N/A after refactor

## Remaining Work

- Derek's test coverage findings were not addressed (test writing is separate)
- N findings skipped due to: ...
```

### Phase 3 — Summary

Print a final summary to the user:

```
Review fix complete.

Waves executed: N
Commits created: N
Findings fixed: N / M planned (X Fix, Y Improve)
Skipped: N (reasons listed in execution log)

Plan:      .reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review-plan.md
Execution: .reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review-execution.md
```

## Important Rules

- **Never skip a Fix-severity finding** without logging a clear reason.
- **Read before edit** — every agent must read the target file before modifying it.
- **Minimal changes** — fix exactly what the finding describes, nothing more.
- **No new features** — this is a fix pass, not a feature pass.
- **No test writing** — Derek's findings are logged as "remaining work" but not executed
  here. Test creation deserves its own focused session.
- **Preserve behavior** — if a fix would change external API behavior, mark it as
  Risk: High in the plan and add a note in the execution log.
- If the review file has a "Previous Reviews" section noting still-open findings from
  prior reviews, include those in the plan too.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.