review-contract

Classifies code review agents into Blocking, Analytical, and Advisory tiers with anti-leniency rules.

6|2|Updated Jan 30, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Jerrylalala/compound-engineering --skill review-contract-jerrylalala
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: review-contract
Source: https://github.com/Jerrylalala/compound-engineering/tree/main/plugins/compound-engineering/skills-custom/review-contract
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Jerrylalala/compound-engineering --skill review-contract-jerrylalala

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? Code review agents often produce inconsistent severity judgments—either missing critical security issues or flooding reports with low-value style opinions. This Skill defines a three-tier classification contract that standardizes how strictly each review agent must report findings. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Three-Tier Agent Classification: Groups review agents into Blocking (security, data migrations, deployment), Analytical (architecture, performance, language-specific reviewers), and Advisory (simplicity, schema drift) tiers, each with distinct confidence thresholds and reporting rules. - Conclusion Type Overlay: Adds a semantic conclusion_type field (finding, question, needs-human-check, clear) mapped onto the upstream findings schema without modifying it. - Anti-Leniency Rules: Lowers the P0 reporting threshold to confidence 0.50 for Blocking agents, requires evidence with file paths and line numbers, and downgrades Advisory-tier style opinions to P3. - Patch Gate Integration: When ce:review runs with the [T] flag, the Deterministic Patch Gate automatically consumes tier classifications to force Blocking findings into gated_auto. - Use Case: Before running ce:review on a pull request touching database migrations, load this contract so the data-migrations-reviewer applies zero-tolerance Blocking rules while the code-simplicity-reviewer stays advisory. ## Quick Start Load the review-contract skill before running ce:review so the review agents apply the correct tier-based strictness to this pull request.

Frequently Asked Questions about review-contract

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I make code review agents stricter about security findings?▼

Assign security-reviewer, data-migrations-reviewer, and deployment-verification-agent to the Blocking tier. Blocking agents must report P0 issues at confidence 0.50 or higher, include evidence with file paths and line numbers, and use needs-human-check when uncertain.

What is the difference between Blocking, Analytical, and Advisory review tiers?▼

Blocking tier enforces zero tolerance for production-risk issues like security and migrations. Analytical tier requires concrete reproduction scenarios for every finding. Advisory tier treats code style and simplicity as suggestions, defaulting to P3 severity.

Does review-contract modify the upstream ce:review findings schema?▼

No. The conclusion_type field is a local overlay that maps onto existing upstream fields like severity, confidence, autofix_class, and requires_verification. The upstream findings-schema.json remains unchanged.

When does the Patch Gate automatically apply tier classifications?▼

The Patch Gate consumes tier classifications only when ce:review receives the [T] flag, mode:autofix is selected, and a .team-contract.md file exists in the repository root. Otherwise the skill must be loaded manually before review.

Why are some review findings downgraded to P3 or residual risks?▼

Advisory tier findings about code taste are capped at P3 because style preferences should not block merges. Analytical concerns without a concrete trigger scenario are moved to residual_risks instead of findings to reduce noise.