MCP HubMCP Hub
Volver a habilidades

archetype-review-base

avelikiy
Actualizado 2 days ago
10 vistas
30
6
30
Ver en GitHub
Otroai

Acerca de

Este es un marco de revisión fundamental que todos los revisores específicos de dominio deben implementar para garantizar una estructura consistente, calificaciones de severidad y formato de veredicto. Define el límite entre las heurísticas específicas de dominio y las verificaciones genéricas, eliminando la duplicación en 18 diferentes instrucciones de revisores. Utilice esta habilidad siempre que invoque a cualquier revisor de dominio listado, pero no para revisiones generales de seguridad entre dominios.

Instalación rápida

Claude Code

Recomendado
Principal
npx skills add avelikiy/great_cto -a claude-code
Comando PluginAlternativo
/plugin add https://github.com/avelikiy/great_cto
Git CloneAlternativo
git clone https://github.com/avelikiy/great_cto.git ~/.claude/skills/archetype-review-base

Copia y pega este comando en Claude Code para instalar esta habilidad

Documentación

Archetype-review-base — shared review framework

Every domain reviewer follows this skeleton. Each reviewer's own SKILL.md adds the domain heuristics on top. This skill defines the parts that must be IDENTICAL across all reviewers.

Mandatory report sections

A domain review report is a markdown file at docs/reviews/REVIEW-{slug}-{reviewer}.md. It MUST contain these sections in this exact order:

# REVIEW-{slug} — {reviewer name}

Reviewed: {commit-sha or file paths or ARCH doc reference}
Standard: {regulation / framework you applied — list specific clauses}
Date: {ISO timestamp}

## Scope

2-3 sentences. What did you look at? What's intentionally out of scope?

## Findings

For each finding, use this exact format:

- **[Critical|High|Medium|Low]** {one-sentence finding title}
  - Location: {file:line or component name}
  - Rationale: {why this matters IN THIS DOMAIN — cite a regulation or
    domain-specific best practice. Generic "could be a problem" is
    rejected.}
  - Remediation: {specific fix — code change, config change, or
    architectural change. NOT "consider adding X" — write the exact change.}
  - References: {URL or document section}

Order findings: Critical → High → Medium → Low.
If no findings at a tier, write: "_None at {tier} severity._"

## Verdict

VERDICT: {APPROVED|BLOCKED} reason="{specific reason}"

Severity scale (DOMAIN-anchored)

Severity is graded against THIS DOMAIN's regulatory or correctness baseline, not generic STRIDE severity. Examples:

  • A PCI reviewer rating an unencrypted PAN at REST = Critical (PCI scope violation; immediate regulatory exposure)
  • An oracle reviewer rating a Chainlink staleness < 1h = High (likely OK now, MEV vulnerable in stress)
  • A gov reviewer rating Section 508 a11y gaps = High (federal contract risk; not Critical because not an immediate breach)

Cite the standard in Rationale. If you can't, the finding is probably generic and should be reduced one severity tier (the security-officer agent handles generic concerns).

Verdict rules

  • VERDICT: APPROVED is allowed only when ALL Critical and ALL High findings have remediation in the bd backlog. (Use bd ready --label {your-archetype} to check.)
  • VERDICT: BLOCKED is required when even one Critical or High has no remediation, OR when discovery surfaced an unknown that you couldn't resolve.
  • Medium and Low findings do NOT block. Note them; pipeline continues.

Domain heuristic vs generic check

You are the SPECIALIST. Your job is the domain-specific stuff that generic STRIDE / OWASP misses. Decision rule:

The check is about…Belongs to
Card data, PCI scope, idempotency in paymentspci-reviewer
Oracle staleness, MEV, contract upgradeabilityoracle-reviewer
PHI flows, BAA chain, FHIR/HL7healthcare-reviewer
Generic XSS, SQLi, weak hashing, secrets in sourcesecurity-officer (NOT you)
Generic "needs error handling"senior-dev / code-reviewer (NOT you)

If a finding is generic, mention it briefly but DON'T inflate severity. Defer to the appropriate generic reviewer.

Apply skeptical-triage

Before emitting VERDICT: BLOCKED, apply the skeptical-triage skill (3 rounds of self-challenge). False-positive BLOCKED at gate:plan wastes CTO time. Only block when 3/3 rounds confirm.

Verdict log line

After writing your report, append ONE line to your verdict log:

{ISO-ts} {APPROVED|BLOCKED} feature={slug} review=docs/reviews/REVIEW-{slug}-{reviewer}.md criticals={N} highs={M} mediums={K} cost=${USD}

The board's readVerdicts() parser anchors on the leading timestamp. Format MUST be space-separated; pipe-separated form parses as verdict='|' and breaks the pipeline status display.

Prose rules — apply skill prose-style

  • No hedge words ("generally", "somewhat", "maybe")
  • Lead with the conclusion
  • Concrete evidence (file:line) over adjectives
  • No filler openings ("In this review, we will...")
  • Verdict line on the LAST line of the report

When to escalate vs review

Escalate to security-officer (not just BLOCK) when:

  • The finding crosses your domain boundary (e.g. PCI reviewer hits a generic SQLi — that's security-officer's job)
  • A regulatory question is ambiguous (e.g. "is this BA or sub-processor under HIPAA?")
  • The user has provided conflicting requirements (BLOCKED on contradictions, not on your domain expertise)

Escalation: create a bd task with label security-officer and blocks your review verdict.

Self-test before sign-off

Before writing your verdict line, grep your draft for:

  • \b(generally|somewhat|fairly|mostly|possibly|perhaps|maybe)\b — rewrite
  • Any finding without a Location line — fix
  • Any finding without Remediation as a SPECIFIC change — fix
  • Any Critical/High without remediation-in-bd — flip to BLOCKED

If any check fires in a non-quoted block, fix before signing off.

Repositorio GitHub

avelikiy/great_cto
Ruta: skills/archetype-review-base
0
agentic-codingclaude-code-pluginclaude-code-skillsclaude-code-subagentscode-reviewcto

Habilidades relacionadas

llamaguard

Otro

LlamaGuard es el modelo de Meta de 7-8B parámetros para moderar las entradas y salidas de LLM en seis categorías de seguridad como violencia y discurso de odio. Ofrece una precisión del 94-95% y puede implementarse usando vLLM, Hugging Face o Amazon SageMaker. Utiliza esta skill para integrar fácilmente filtrado de contenido y barreras de seguridad en tus aplicaciones de IA.

Ver habilidad

cost-optimization

Otro

Esta Skill de Claude ayuda a los desarrolladores a optimizar los costes en la nube mediante el ajuste de tamaño de recursos, estrategias de etiquetado y análisis de gastos. Proporciona un marco para reducir los gastos en la nube e implementar una gobernanza de costes en AWS, Azure y GCP. Úsala cuando necesites analizar los costes de infraestructura, ajustar el tamaño de los recursos o cumplir con restricciones presupuestarias.

Ver habilidad

quantizing-models-bitsandbytes

Otro

Esta habilidad cuantiza LLMs a precisión de 8 o 4 bits utilizando bitsandbytes, logrando una reducción de memoria del 50-75% con pérdida mínima de precisión. Es ideal para ejecutar modelos más grandes en memoria GPU limitada o para acelerar la inferencia, admitiendo formatos como INT8, NF4 y FP4. La habilidad se integra con HuggingFace Transformers y permite entrenamiento QLoRA y optimizadores de 8 bits.

Ver habilidad

dispatching-parallel-agents

Otro

Esta Skill de Claude despliega múltiples agentes para investigar y solucionar 3 o más problemas independientes de forma concurrente. Está diseñada para escenarios que involucran fallos no relacionados que pueden resolverse sin estado compartido o dependencias. Su capacidad principal es la resolución paralela de problemas, asignando un agente por cada dominio problemático independiente para maximizar la eficiencia.

Ver habilidad