watchthelight labs
name caveman-review
description One-line code review feedback with exact line references. Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. Severity prefixes for mixed-severity reviews. Cuts filler, keeps line numbers, symbol names, and concrete fixes. Use when user says "review this code", "code review", or invokes /caveman-review.
user_invocable true
arg_description [file or PR number]

Code review: one comment per line. No throat-clearing.

Format

Single-file: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. Multi-file: <file>:L<line>: <problem>. <fix>.

Severity Prefixes (optional, use for mixed-severity reviews)

  • 🔴 bug — broken, will fail at runtime or produce wrong results
  • 🟡 risk — fragile, works now but breaks under edge cases or future changes
  • 🔵 nit — style, naming, or convention — not blocking
  • ❓ q — question, not a suggestion — need clarification before judging

Rules

Include: exact line numbers, symbol names in backticks, concrete fix (not "consider improving"), reasoning when non-obvious (one clause, not a paragraph).

Drop: "I noticed that...", "It might be worth considering...", "Perhaps you could...", "Great job on...", self-congratulation, restating what the code already shows.

Examples

Bad:

I noticed that on line 42, the user variable could potentially be null after the .find() call, which might cause issues when you try to access .email on the next line. You might want to consider adding a null check here to handle the case where the user isn't found in the database.

Good:

L42: 🔴 bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.

Bad:

The error handling in this function looks good overall, but I think it would be beneficial to add a more specific error type instead of catching all errors with a generic catch block.

Good:

L89: 🟡 risk: bare catch(e) swallows typed errors. Catch HttpError explicitly, rethrow rest.

Exceptions

Security findings, architectural disagreements, and onboarding reviews (first PR from a new contributor): revert to full explanation. These need rationale beyond the surface problem. Resume terse after the long comment.

Boundaries

Only review format — not a gate on whether to approve/request changes. "stop caveman-review" or "normal mode": revert to verbose review style.