Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From caveman
Generates terse, actionable code review comments in 'L<line>: <problem>. <fix>.' format. Cuts noise from PR feedback, preserves signal. Auto-triggers on pull requests.
npx claudepluginhub arogyareddy/https-github.com-juliusbrussee-caveman --plugin cavemanHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/caveman:caveman-reviewThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.
Generates ultra-compressed code review comments for PRs and diffs: one line per finding with location, problem, fix. Supports severity prefixes like bug, risk, nit.
Generates ultra-concise PR review comments: one issue per line (L<line>: problem.fix) with severity prefixes (bug, risk, nit, question). Japanese supported. For pull request reviews.
Rewrites code review comments to sound like a human teammate by cutting AI throat-clearing, delivering direct line locations, issues, and concrete fixes. Use for PR reviews.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
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.