Claude Code Plugins

Community-maintained marketplace

Feedback

review-feedback-schema

@existential-birds/beagle
5
0

Schema for tracking code review outcomes to enable feedback-driven skill improvement. Use when logging review results or analyzing review quality.

Install Skill

1Download skill
2Enable skills in Claude

Open claude.ai/settings/capabilities and find the "Skills" section

3Upload to Claude

Click "Upload skill" and select the downloaded ZIP file

Note: Please verify skill by going through its instructions before using it.

SKILL.md

name review-feedback-schema
description Schema for tracking code review outcomes to enable feedback-driven skill improvement. Use when logging review results or analyzing review quality.

Review Feedback Schema

Purpose

Structured format for logging code review outcomes. This data enables:

  1. Identifying rules that produce false positives
  2. Tracking skill accuracy over time
  3. Automated skill improvement via pattern analysis

Schema

date,file,line,rule_source,category,severity,issue,verdict,rationale
Field Type Description Example Values
date ISO date When review occurred 2025-12-23
file path Relative file path amelia/agents/developer.py
line string Line number(s) 128, 190-191
rule_source string Skill and rule that triggered issue python-code-review/common-mistakes:unused-variables, pydantic-ai-common-pitfalls:tool-decorator
category enum Issue taxonomy type-safety, async, error-handling, style, patterns, testing, security
severity enum As flagged by reviewer critical, major, minor
issue string Brief description Return type list[Any] loses type safety
verdict enum Human decision ACCEPT, REJECT, DEFER, ACKNOWLEDGE
rationale string Why verdict was chosen pydantic-ai docs explicitly support this pattern

Verdict Types

Verdict Meaning Action
ACCEPT Issue is valid, will fix Code change made
REJECT Issue is invalid/wrong No change; may improve skill
DEFER Valid but not fixing now Tracked for later
ACKNOWLEDGE Valid but intentional Document why it's intentional

When to Use Each

ACCEPT: The reviewer correctly identified a real issue.

2025-12-27,amelia/agents/developer.py,128,python-code-review:type-safety,type-safety,major,Return type list[Any] loses type safety,ACCEPT,Changed to list[AgentMessage]

REJECT: The reviewer was wrong - the code is correct.

2025-12-23,amelia/drivers/api/openai.py,102,python-code-review:line-length,style,minor,Line too long (104 > 100),REJECT,ruff check passes - no E501 violation exists

DEFER: Valid issue but out of scope for current work.

2025-12-22,api/handlers.py,45,fastapi-code-review:error-handling,error-handling,minor,Missing specific exception type,DEFER,Refactoring planned for Q1

ACKNOWLEDGE: Intentional design decision.

2025-12-21,core/cache.py,89,python-code-review:optimization,patterns,minor,Using dict instead of dataclass,ACKNOWLEDGE,Performance-critical path - intentional

Rule Source Format

Format: skill-name/section:rule-id or skill-name:rule-id

Examples:

  • python-code-review/common-mistakes:unused-variables
  • pydantic-ai-common-pitfalls:tool-decorator
  • fastapi-code-review:dependency-injection
  • pytest-code-review:fixture-scope

Use the skill folder name and identify the specific rule or section that triggered the issue.

Category Taxonomy

Category Description Examples
type-safety Type annotation issues Missing types, incorrect types, Any usage
async Async/await issues Blocking in async, missing await
error-handling Exception handling Bare except, missing error handling
style Code style/formatting Line length, naming conventions
patterns Design patterns Anti-patterns, framework misuse
testing Test quality Missing coverage, flaky tests
security Security issues Injection, secrets exposure

Writing Good Rationales

For ACCEPT

Explain what you fixed:

  • "Changed Exception to (FileNotFoundError, OSError)"
  • "Fixed using model_copy(update={...})"
  • "Removed unused Any import"

For REJECT

Explain why the issue is invalid:

  • "ruff check passes - no E501 violation exists" (linter authoritative)
  • "pydantic-ai docs explicitly support this pattern" (framework idiom)
  • "Intentional optimization documented in code comment" (documented decision)

For DEFER

Explain when/why it will be addressed:

  • "Tracked in issue #123"
  • "Refactoring planned for Q1"
  • "Blocked on dependency upgrade"

For ACKNOWLEDGE

Explain why it's intentional:

  • "Performance-critical path per CLAUDE.md"
  • "Legacy API compatibility requirement"
  • "Matches upstream library pattern"

Example Log

date,file,line,rule_source,category,severity,issue,verdict,rationale
2025-12-20,tests/integration/test_cli_flows.py,407,pytest-code-review:parametrization,testing,minor,Unused extra_args parameter in parametrization,ACCEPT,Fixed - removed dead parameter
2025-12-20,tests/integration/test_cli_flows.py,237-242,pytest-code-review:coverage,testing,major,Missing review --local in git repo error test,REJECT,Not applicable - review uses different error path
2025-12-21,amelia/server/orchestrator/service.py,1702,python-code-review:immutability,patterns,critical,Direct mutation of frozen ExecutionState,ACCEPT,Fixed using model_copy(update={...})
2025-12-23,amelia/drivers/api/tools.py,48-53,pydantic-ai-common-pitfalls:tool-decorator,patterns,major,Misleading RunContext pattern - should use decorators,REJECT,pydantic-ai docs explicitly support passing raw functions with RunContext to Agent(tools=[])
2025-12-23,amelia/drivers/api/openai.py,102,python-code-review:line-length,style,minor,Line too long (104 > 100),REJECT,ruff check passes - no E501 violation exists
2025-12-27,amelia/core/orchestrator.py,190-191,python-code-review:exception-handling,error-handling,major,Generic exception handling in get_code_changes_for_review,ACCEPT,Changed Exception to (FileNotFoundError OSError)
2025-12-27,amelia/agents/developer.py,128,python-code-review:type-safety,type-safety,major,Return type list[Any] loses type safety,ACCEPT,Changed to list[AgentMessage] and removed unused Any import

How This Feeds Into Skill Improvement

  1. Aggregate by rule_source: Identify which rules have high REJECT rates
  2. Analyze rationales: Find common themes in rejections
  3. Update skills: Add exceptions, clarifications, or verification steps
  4. Track impact: Measure if changes reduce rejection rate

See review-skill-improver skill for the full analysis workflow.

Improvement Signals

Pattern Skill Improvement
"linter passes" rejections Add linter verification step before flagging style issues
"docs support this" rejections Add exception for documented framework patterns
"intentional" rejections Add codebase context check before flagging
"wrong code path" rejections Add code tracing step before claiming gaps