yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode

omc-review

Evaluate finished work for defects, risk, and simplification before it ships

First seen Jan 22, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode --skill review

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode · top by installs.

npx skills add yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode

Browse all from yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Repository health

Stars 39.1K
License LICENSE
Default branch main
Open issues 2
Status Active

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 1,666 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 94 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 60 installs

SKILL.md

Review

Use this skill to evaluate work that already exists. Review never authors the change it is judging.

This is the canonical review workflow. merge-readiness routes here, and ai-slop-cleaner is an opt-in lane within it.

Goal

Find what is actually wrong, ranked by severity, with enough detail to act on.

Workflow

  1. Establish what changed and what it was meant to do.
  2. Read the change against that intent.
  3. Check correctness first, then risk, then simplification.
  4. Verify each candidate finding before reporting it.
  5. Report findings most-severe first.

What to check

  • Correctness — logic defects, edge cases, error paths, concurrency
  • Risk — security boundaries, destructive operations, data integrity
  • Reuse — existing utilities or patterns the change should have used
  • Simplification — code that could be deleted or collapsed
  • Coverage — behavior that ships untested

Rules

  • Separate lanes: the reviewer must not be the author's same active context.
  • Verify before reporting. A plausible-sounding finding that does not reproduce is noise.
  • State severity honestly; do not pad the list to look thorough.
  • "No findings" is a valid result when the work is sound.
  • Advisory by default — review informs, it does not gate. Hard gates (release,

security, destructive operations) stay separate and fail closed.

Output

  • Findings, most-severe first, each with file, line, and concrete failure scenario
  • What was checked and found clean
  • Anything that could not be assessed