archetype-review-base
关于
This is a foundational review framework that all domain-specific reviewers must implement to ensure consistent structure, severity ratings, and verdict formatting. It defines the boundary between domain-specific heuristics and generic checks, eliminating duplication across 18 different reviewer prompts. Use this skill whenever invoking any listed domain reviewer, but not for general cross-domain security reviews.
快速安装
Claude Code
推荐npx skills add avelikiy/great_cto -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/avelikiy/great_ctogit clone https://github.com/avelikiy/great_cto.git ~/.claude/skills/archetype-review-base在 Claude Code 中复制并粘贴此命令以安装该技能
技能文档
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: APPROVEDis allowed only when ALL Critical and ALL High findings have remediation in the bd backlog. (Usebd ready --label {your-archetype}to check.)VERDICT: BLOCKEDis 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 payments | pci-reviewer |
| Oracle staleness, MEV, contract upgradeability | oracle-reviewer |
| PHI flows, BAA chain, FHIR/HL7 | healthcare-reviewer |
| Generic XSS, SQLi, weak hashing, secrets in source | security-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.
GitHub 仓库
相关推荐技能
llamaguard
其他LlamaGuard是Meta推出的7-8B参数内容审核模型,专门用于过滤LLM的输入和输出内容。它能检测六大安全风险类别(暴力/仇恨、性内容、武器、违禁品、自残、犯罪计划),准确率达94-95%。开发者可通过HuggingFace、vLLM或Sagemaker快速部署,并能与NeMo Guardrails集成实现自动化安全防护。
cost-optimization
其他这个Claude Skill帮助开发者优化云成本,通过资源调整、标记策略和预留实例来降低AWS、Azure和GCP的开支。它适用于减少云支出、分析基础设施成本或实施成本治理策略的场景。关键功能包括提供成本可视化、资源规模调整指导和定价模型优化建议。
quantizing-models-bitsandbytes
其他这个Skill使用bitsandbytes库量化大语言模型,能在GPU内存有限时通过8位或4位量化减少50-75%内存占用,同时保持精度损失最小。它支持INT8、NF4、FP4等多种量化格式,可与HuggingFace Transformers无缝集成,适用于需要部署更大模型或加速推理的场景。还提供QLoRA训练和8位优化器支持,让开发者能轻松实现高效模型压缩。
dispatching-parallel-agents
其他该Skill用于并行处理3个以上无依赖关系的独立故障,可为每个问题域分派专属Claude代理同时执行调查修复。它通过并发处理多个独立问题显著提升故障排查效率,特别适用于测试文件、子系统等无共享状态的场景。
