Fix Review

Fix Review

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/fix-review from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Fix Review

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Limitations.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• Reviewing commits that address security audit findings
• Verifying that fixes don't introduce new vulnerabilities
• Ensuring code changes properly resolve identified issues
• Validating that remediation efforts are complete and correct
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Verify fix commits address audit findings without new bugs.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Review Fix Commits: Analyze commits that claim to fix audit findings
2. Verify Resolution: Ensure the original issue is properly addressed
3. Check for Regressions: Verify no new bugs or vulnerabilities are introduced
4. Validate Completeness: Ensure all aspects of the finding are resolved
5. Compare the fix against the original audit finding
6. Verify the fix addresses the root cause, not just symptoms
7. Check for potential side effects or new issues

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Instructions

This skill helps verify that fix commits properly address audit findings:

1. Review Fix Commits: Analyze commits that claim to fix audit findings
2. Verify Resolution: Ensure the original issue is properly addressed
3. Check for Regressions: Verify no new bugs or vulnerabilities are introduced
4. Validate Completeness: Ensure all aspects of the finding are resolved

Imported: Review Process

When reviewing fix commits:

1. Compare the fix against the original audit finding
2. Verify the fix addresses the root cause, not just symptoms
3. Check for potential side effects or new issues
4. Validate that tests cover the fixed scenario
5. Ensure no similar vulnerabilities exist elsewhere

Imported: Overview

Verify that fix commits properly address audit findings without introducing new bugs or security vulnerabilities.

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @fix-review to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @fix-review against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @fix-review for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @fix-review using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Review fixes in context of the full codebase
• Verify test coverage for the fixed issue
• Check for similar patterns that might need fixing
• Ensure fixes follow security best practices
• Document the resolution approach
• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Best Practices

• Review fixes in context of the full codebase
• Verify test coverage for the fixed issue
• Check for similar patterns that might need fixing
• Ensure fixes follow security best practices
• Document the resolution approach

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/fix-review, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Load only the files that materially change the answer, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @00-andruia-consultant-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @20-andruia-niche-intelligence-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @2d-games - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Resources

For more information, see the source repository.