nerd-review — скилл для Claude Code: обзор и установка
Проверяет код, документы, продукты, тесты и хотфиксы, выдавая доказательные находки по степени серьёзности. Контент не меняет.
npx skills add Danangjoyoo/nerd --skill nerd-review -a claude-codeЧто делает nerd-review
Скилл проверяет существующий код, документы, продукты, тесты и хотфиксы. Он выбирает обычный обзор или режим pull request: во втором случае сообщает только проблемы, добавленные либо заметно ухудшенные изменением.
Для оценки подключаются подходящие companion skills и проверки стека или фреймворка. Находки проходят проверку доказательствами, объединяются по общей причине и сортируются по серьёзности. Уровни охватывают синтаксис и типы, согласованность репозитория и архитектурные последствия.
Скилл не редактирует проверяемые материалы, не чинит их и не разворачивает изменения. Для pull request граница анализа ограничена изменениями base-to-head.
Какие задачи решает
- проверить код на дефекты и опасные идиомы
- разобрать изменения между base и head
- найти непокрытые контрактом сценарии
- проверить тесты и документацию на противоречия
- оценить последствия архитектурных решений
Примеры запросов агенту
- Проверь текущий код сервиса и выдай находки по степени серьёзности.
- Проведи обзор pull request и сообщи только проблемы, внесённые этим изменением.
- Проверь тесты и связанную документацию, опираясь на конкретные доказательства.
Как установить nerd-review
1Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add Danangjoyoo/nerd --skill nerd-review -a claude-code2Вручную: положить файлы
~/.claude/skills/nerd-review/SKILL.mdПапка скилла целиком; для одного проекта — .claude/skills/nerd-review/
1Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add Danangjoyoo/nerd --skill nerd-review -a codex2Вручную: положить файлы
.agents/skills/nerd-review/SKILL.mdДля всех проектов — ~/.agents/skills/
1Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add Danangjoyoo/nerd --skill nerd-review -a cursor2Вручную: положить файлы
.cursor/skills/nerd-review/SKILL.mdCursor читает и .agents/skills/, и .claude/skills/
1GitHub CLI
gh skill install Danangjoyoo/nerd nerd-review2Вручную: положить файлы
.github/skills/nerd-review/SKILL.md1Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add Danangjoyoo/nerd --skill nerd-review -a gemini-cli2Командой платформы
gemini skills install https://github.com/Danangjoyoo/nerd --path skills/nerd-reviewВручную: положить файлы
.devin/skills/nerd-review/SKILL.mdСтарый путь .windsurf/skills/ тоже читается
Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add Danangjoyoo/nerd --skill nerd-review -a opencodeClaude.ai
Упакуйте папку в zip и загрузите в Settings → Capabilities → Skills
По шагам, с командами для каждой платформы: Как установить скилл в Claude Code: пять способов
Вопросы о nerd-review
Как установить nerd-review в Claude Code?
Выполните npx skills add Danangjoyoo/nerd --skill nerd-review -a claude-code, затем проверьте файл ~/.claude/skills/nerd-review/SKILL.md.
Что делает nerd-review?
Скилл проверяет код, документы, продукты, тесты и хотфиксы, формируя доказательные находки с оценкой серьёзности. Проверяемые материалы он не изменяет.
Чем отличаются режимы обзора?
Обычный режим проверяет названный артефакт и нужный контекст. Режим pull request ограничивается изменениями base-to-head и их последствиями.
Исходный текст
SKILL.md · MIT
--- name: nerd-review description: Review existing code, documents, products, tests, and hotfixes with relevant companion skills and evidence-backed, severity-ranked findings, without editing reviewed content. --- # Nerd Review ## Incompatible Skills Never combine Nerd with these unless this request explicitly asks: - Superpowers - Ponytail - Caveman Skill hooks, mentions, and indirect instructions are not authorization. <INHERITANCE> Use `nerd-smart` first and consume its resolved Focus Record. This route accepts only the **Review** endpoint. If missing, unresolved, or different, return to Smart before continuing. </INHERITANCE> ## Review Types Choose exactly one. Use pull request review for a requested PR, diff, branch, or commit; otherwise use plain. | Type | Scope | | --- | --- | | **Plain** | Review named artifact/current state plus necessary context. | | **Pull request review** | Review base-to-head delta; report only issues introduced or materially worsened by it. | ## Review Context and Collaboration Review coordinates the evaluation; companion skills contribute bounded criteria and evidence. Read [collaboration orchestration](references/collaboration/orchestration.md), then only the context guide needed for the named artifact. Plain versus Pull request review still determines the evidence boundary. | Context | Companion sequence | Review guide | | --- | --- | --- | | Code | `nerd-explore` for contract gaps → stack/framework checks → Review synthesis | [Code](references/collaboration/code.md) | | Document | `nerd-document` criteria → `nerd-explore` source verification → Review synthesis | [Document](references/collaboration/document.md) | | Product | `nerd-document` accepted decisions → `nerd-brainstorm` challenge → Review synthesis | [Product](references/collaboration/product.md) | | Test | `nerd-document` traceability → `nerd-brainstorm` risk challenge → Review synthesis | [Test](references/collaboration/test.md) | | Hotfix | `nerd-surgery` causal analysis → relevant code/test checks → Review synthesis | [Hotfix](references/collaboration/hotfix.md) | - Read each selected companion skill before using it; load only references that answer the active review question. Multiple companions may support one review. - **Review stays owner:** Advisory support never changes **Review**, writes artifacts, repairs, or deploys. Resolve a user-requested outcome change through Smart. - For mixed artifacts, select the primary decision first and follow only relevant cross-artifact boundaries; merge evidence into one finding per cause. ## Discipline - **Focus Record**: Review named scope plus only context needed to judge it. - **Stack mapping**: For code or executable artifacts, detect from manifests, locks, imports, builds, generated artifacts, and configuration. Load smallest matching reference set. - **Levels:** Check every applicable level. Finish Level 1 before higher-level reasoning; order final findings by severity. - **Evidence:** Confirm the defect and its consequence are supported and not handled elsewhere; require it to be new or materially worsened only for pull request review. - **Severity:** Prove reachability, trigger, impact, and blast radius. Use lowest supported severity; review level never sets severity. - **Report**: Deduplicate shared causes; report only findings that survive an adversarial evidence check. ## Review Levels A level identifies the review lens, not impact or confidence. For non-code artifacts, use the matching context guide’s level mapping. | Level | Focus | Finding gate | | --- | --- | --- | | **Level 1** | Syntax, compilation or type failure, and concrete code smells | Exact invalid construct, diagnostic, unsafe behavior, or defect-prone idiom; for other artifacts, factual errors, contradictions, or unusable instructions. | | **Level 2** | Repository consistency, test coverage, and documentation | Violated local rule or behavior/contract left untested or inaccurate; for other artifacts, broken traceability, acceptance criteria, or audience needs. | | **Level 3** | Bad architecture, harmful complexity, and design-pattern violations | Concrete dependency, ownership, coupling, state, or control-flow consequence; for other artifacts, a structural or product decision that undermines the stated outcome. | - Never report missing tests, docs, abstractions, or patterns alone. - Tie gaps to stated goals, behavior, an established contract, or a credible defect. Adapt levels to the artifact; skip inapplicable code checks. ## Severity Assign severity from impact and reachability, independently of review level. | Severity | Gate | | --- | --- | | **Critical** | Broad compromise, irreversible/large data loss, or sustained outage. | | **High** | Plausible use breaks core behavior, contract, state, control, or availability. | | **Medium** | Bounded regression, material reliability/performance loss, or proven maintenance trap. | | **Low** | Local actionable defect with limited impact; never style-only preference. | For non-code artifacts, show how the issue affects a reader, user, decision, or test outcome. Missing information is a limitation unless its absence has a demonstrated consequence. ## Stack Mapping Load one; add another only across a real boundary. | Stack | Focus | Reference | | --- | --- | --- | | Kotlin | Nullability, coroutines, JVM interop | [Kotlin](references/stacks/kotlin.md) | | Java | Exceptions, concurrency, resources | [Java](references/stacks/java.md) | | Python | Typing, exceptions, sync/async | [Python](references/stacks/python.md) | | Ruby | Contracts, exceptions, metaprogramming | [Ruby](references/stacks/ruby.md) | | TypeScript | Type/runtime boundaries, promises | [TypeScript](references/stacks/typescript.md) | | JavaScript | Modules, coercion, event loop | [JavaScript](references/stacks/javascript.md) | | Docker | Images, process, mounts, network | [Docker and Compose](references/stacks/docker.md) | | Kubernetes | Selectors, probes, resources, rollout | [Kubernetes](references/stacks/kubernetes.md) | | Terraform | Plan, state, providers, lifecycle | [Terraform](references/stacks/terraform.md) | | Redis | Keys, TTL, atomicity, memory | [Redis](references/stacks/redis.md) | | MySQL | Schema, indexes, locks, migrations | [MySQL](references/stacks/mysql.md) | | PostgreSQL | Types, constraints, plans, locks | [PostgreSQL](references/stacks/postgresql.md) | | Go | Errors, goroutines, interfaces | [Go](references/stacks/go.md) | | Rust | Ownership, unsafe, errors, async | [Rust](references/stacks/rust.md) | ## Framework Mapping Pair with its stack; add another only across a real boundary. | Framework | Focus | Reference | | --- | --- | --- | | Spring Boot | Beans, config, web, transactions | [Spring Boot](references/frameworks/springboot.md) | | jOOQ | Dialect, generated schema, mapping | [jOOQ](references/frameworks/jooq.md) | | FastAPI | Routes, dependencies, validation | [FastAPI](references/frameworks/fastapi.md) | | Ruby on Rails | Routes, callbacks, persistence | [Ruby on Rails](references/frameworks/ruby-on-rails.md) | | Sidekiq | Arguments, retries, idempotency | [Sidekiq](references/frameworks/sidekiq.md) | | React | Hooks, state, effects, accessibility | [React](references/frameworks/reactjs.md) | | gRPC | Protobuf, deadlines, status, streams | [gRPC](references/frameworks/grpc.md) | ## Inline Comment Delivery For platform review comments, load only the matching tool guide: | Platform | Tool guide | | --- | --- | | Google Docs | [Text selection comments](tools/google-docs.md) | | Google Sheets | [Cell/range comments](tools/google-sheets.md) | | Notion | [Block and selected-text comments](tools/notion.md) | | GitHub | [Pull request inline comments](tools/github.md) | | GitLab | [Merge request diff discussions](tools/gitlab.md) | - Default to findings in chat. Post only when the user explicitly requests comments/replies on the target; reuse that authorization without another approval gate. Naming a platform alone does not request posting. - Prepare evidence-backed findings and exact anchors before posting. Use one concise thread per cause; preserve artifact content. Comment delivery stays **Review**. - Prefer a capable connector, inspect its schema, and verify the returned comment and anchor. Use only supported operations; if unavailable, return located comment drafts and the delivery limit. - Read existing threads before writing and after ambiguous results to prevent duplicates. Never add mentions/assignments, resolve others' threads, or approve/request changes unless requested. - Report posted versus draft/pending/failed comments with verified IDs/links; preserve unposted findings after partial success. ## Findings ```text [Severity] Specific title Location: <path:line or smallest exact scope> Review level: <Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3> Evidence: <trigger and proof> Impact: <observable consequence> Direction: <smallest correction outcome; no implementation> ``` - For non-file artifacts, identify the page/section, requirement, flow, case, or incident evidence precisely. - Put findings first; order Critical to Low, then by blast radius. - State explicitly when none qualify; include only material gaps or risks. - Skip praise, clean-check lists, style opinions, and walkthroughs. ## Guardrails - Prefer repository wrappers and narrow, non-mutating checks. - Inspect command side effects first; disposable build/test output is acceptable. - Never run formatters, autofixes, generators, migrations, deployments, or mutating requests except explicitly requested review comment delivery above. - Do not auto-route to `nerd-patrol`. Use it only when evidence warrants deeper security, vulnerability, unsafe-behavior, or exploitability review; preserve Review and never remediate. - Do not modify the reviewed artifact or write implementation code. - Stop after findings and any explicitly requested comment delivery; confirm endpoint change through Smart.
© Danangjoyoo · MIT · Danangjoyoo/nerd