### Caveman Code Review
Works with
Delivers ultra-compressed, actionable PR feedback using a strict L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. format to eliminate noise.
Uses severity prefixes like 🔴 bug, 🟡 risk, 🔵 nit, and ❓ q to categorize findings without unnecessary conversational filler.
Switches to verbose explanations only for critical security issues, architectural debates, or onboarding contexts.
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versioncaveman-reviewExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches caveman-review from JuliusBrussee/caveman and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate caveman-review. Access via /caveman-review in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
71
total installs
71
this week
7.9K
GitHub stars
1
upvotes
Run in your terminal
71
installs
71
this week
7.9K
stars
| name | caveman-review |
| description | > Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests. |
Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.
Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. — or <file>:L<line>: ... when reviewing multi-file diffs.
Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):
🔴 bug: — broken behavior, will cause incident🟡 risk: — works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)🔵 nit: — style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore❓ q: — genuine question, not a suggestionDrop:
nit: insteadq:Keep:
❌ "I noticed that on line 42 you're not checking if the user object is null before accessing the email property. This could potentially cause a crash if the user is not found in the database. You might want to add a null check here."
✅ L42: 🔴 bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.
❌ "It looks like this function is doing a lot of things and might benefit from being broken up into smaller functions for readability."
✅ L88-140: 🔵 nit: 50-line fn does 4 things. Extract validate/normalize/persist.
❌ "Have you considered what happens if the API returns a 429? I think we should probably handle that case."
✅ L23: 🟡 risk: no retry on 429. Wrap in withBackoff(3).
Drop terse mode for: security findings (CVE-class bugs need full explanation + reference), architectural disagreements (need rationale, not just a one-liner), and onboarding contexts where the author is new and needs the "why". In those cases write a normal paragraph, then resume terse for the rest.
Reviews only — does not write the code fix, does not approve/request-changes, does not run linters. Output the comment(s) ready to paste into the PR. "stop caveman-review" or "normal mode": revert to verbose review style.
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
JuliusBrussee/caveman
JuliusBrussee/caveman
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing
dengineproblem/agents-monorepo
claude-office-skills/skills
vercel-labs/skills
I recommend caveman-review for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: caveman-review is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
We added caveman-review from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
Keeps context tight: caveman-review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
caveman-review fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
caveman-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
Keeps context tight: caveman-review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
I recommend caveman-review for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
Useful defaults in caveman-review — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
showing 1-10 of 38
npx skills add https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman --skill caveman-review
Thongchai wanon photo