From fresheyes
Use when the user asks for "fresh eyes", an independent review, or a second opinion on code, commits, plans, or files.
npx claudepluginhub danshapiro/fresheyes --plugin fresheyesThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
Invoke an independent model to perform a code review. The reviewer has zero context from your conversation — only the repo and the scope you give it.
Guides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR) with cacheComponents enabled. Implements 'use cache', cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag(), static/dynamic optimization, and cache debugging.
Guides building MCP servers enabling LLMs to interact with external services via tools. Covers best practices, TypeScript/Node (MCP SDK), Python (FastMCP).
Generates original PNG/PDF visual art via design philosophy manifestos for posters, graphics, and static designs on user request.
Invoke an independent model to perform a code review. The reviewer has zero context from your conversation — only the repo and the scope you give it.
The reviewer uses git commands and only sees committed code. Before invoking, verify all relevant changes are committed. If not, commit them first (or tell the user uncommitted changes won't be reviewed).
{{#if args}} Use the provided scope: {{args}} {{else}} Default scope: "Review the staged changes using git diff --cached. If nothing is staged, review the most recent commit using git show HEAD." {{/if}}
The scope should be a clear, specific instruction telling the reviewer what to examine. The reviewer has NO context from your conversation — only the repo and what you tell it.
The user's instructions are paramount. If the user says "do a security review of src/auth/", pass that through faithfully — the scope becomes "Review the files in src/auth/ for security issues." If the user does not scope the review, DO NOT PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS THAT LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE REVIEW. Do not use your judgment about what to review, only relay any opinions by the user, if any. Preserve reviewer independence; do not send instructions to the judge.
Good scope examples:
Review the staged changes using git diff --cached.Review commit abc1234 using git show abc1234.Review the files in src/auth/.Review the files in src/auth/ for security issues. (user explicitly asked for security review)Review the plan in docs/plans/2025-01-03-feature.md.Review the changes between main and this branch using git diff main...HEAD.Review the changes in the worktree at ../feature-worktree using git diffBad scope examples:
check out what we just did (reviewer has no context for "what we just did")review src/auth/ again; the buffer overflow has been fixed (don't add your own context — either say nothing, or pass through what the user asked for)Default to a different model family from yourself — model diversity improves review quality.
--gpt--claude--gpt--gpt or --claude)The provider keyword controls which model runs the review. Do NOT include it in the scope text.
If the model you chose throws an error, try another. If that also throws an error, stop and ask the user what to do. DO NOT CONTINUE IF YOU CANNOT FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS.
The script path is fresheyes.sh inside this skill's base directory (shown at the top of these instructions).
bash "<base-directory>/fresheyes.sh" [--gpt|--claude] "<scope from step 2>"
If no scope is provided, it defaults to reviewing staged changes or HEAD.
Caller status check: Poll once per minute with bash "<base-directory>/fresheyes-progress.sh"; if the returned line count increases between polls, the review is still progressing.
Timeout handling: This skill has a 15-minute timeout. If the review times out, retry with a 30-minute timeout (1800000ms).
Output the review response exactly as returned.
--claude), not in the scope string.