caveman-review
SkillDev toolscaveman-review is a skill that cuts your AI's token usage by about 65% by rewriting its responses in short, simple language. Once added, your AI answers in brief, plain wording instead of long explanations. It is a development tool, made for coding assistants that go through a lot of tokens.
Then ask your AI: use the caveman-review skill
Details
Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.
Account requirements not reviewed. Check the skill instructions before use; Ahel provides instructions and does not run this skill.
No other account needed.
Add the skill, then use your AI as usual and its responses will come back in short, simple language that uses far fewer tokens.
What your AI can do with it
- Cut token usage by about 65%
- Rewrite responses in short, simple language
- Keep answers brief and to the point
- Deliver replies in plain, easy-to-read wording
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by andrebrait/datromtool in .agents/skills/caveman-review/SKILL.md and read by Ahelβs review.
Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.
Rules
Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. β or <file>:L<line>: ... when reviewing multi-file diffs.
Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):
π΄ bug:β broken behavior, will cause incidentπ‘ risk:β works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)π΅ nit:β style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignoreβ q:β genuine question, not a suggestion
Drop:
- "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."
- "This is just a suggestion but..." β use
nit:instead - "Great work!", "Looks good overall but..." β say it once at the top, not per comment
- Restating what the line does β the reviewer can read the diff
- Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe", "I think") β if unsure use
q:
Keep:
- Exact line numbers
- Exact symbol/function/variable names in backticks
- Concrete fix, not "consider refactoring this"
- The why if the fix isn't obvious from the problem statement
Examples
β "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."
β
L42: π΄ bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.
β "It looks like this function is doing a lot of things and might benefit from being broken up into smaller functions for readability."
β
L88-140: π΅ nit: 50-line fn does 4 things. Extract validate/normalize/persist.
β "Have you considered what happens if the API returns a 429? I think we should probably handle that case."
β
L23: π‘ risk: no retry on 429. Wrap in withBackoff(3).
Auto-Clarity
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.
Boundaries
Reviews only β 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.
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 59
- Last commit
- Oct 2026
Others that do the same job
Advanced
- Item type
- skill
- Key
caveman-review- Source
- github.com/andrebrait/datromtool
github.com/andrebrait/datromtool