Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Interactive git diff annotation review. Generates a cleaned-up diff, opens in editor for user annotations, and addresses feedback in a loop. Activates on "git review", "review changes", "review my changes", "annotate changes", "interactive review".
.claude/skills/umputun-git-review/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -9% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -26% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 17% | 0% |
| case-15 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -31% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 36% | 0% |
Interactive annotation-based code review using editor overlays.
$EDITOR via agterm overlay, tmux popup, kitty overlay, or wezterm split-panebash${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/git-review/scripts/git-review.py [base_ref]
HEAD~3)If the script produces output (stdout), the user made annotations. The output is a git diff showing what the user added/changed in the review file.
Read the diff carefully:
Each annotation is in context — the surrounding === file headers and diff content show which file and code area the annotation refers to.
Enter plan mode (EnterPlanMode) to analyze annotations and design the fix approach:
After plan approval, fix the actual source code in the real repository. Each annotation is a directive — treat it as a code review comment that must be addressed.
After fixing code, run the script again. It regenerates a fresh diff reflecting the fixes and opens the editor. The user can:
When the script produces no output, the review is complete. Inform the user.
| Argument | Description | |----------|-------------| | (none) | auto-detect: uncommitted changes if present, otherwise branch vs default branch | | <ref> | diff against specific ref: master, main, HEAD~5, v1.2.0, etc. | | --clean | remove the review tracking repo from /tmp | | --test | run embedded unit tests |
User: "review my changes"
→ run: git-review.py
→ editor opens with cleaned diff
→ user adds "this should validate input" next to a handler
→ user closes editor
→ stdout shows the annotation
→ enter plan mode: "annotation requests input validation in handler.go, plan: add validate() call"
→ user approves plan
→ Claude adds input validation to the handler
→ run: git-review.py (again)
→ editor opens with updated diff (validation now visible)
→ user closes without changes
→ no stdout → review complete
→ "review complete, all annotations addressed"$EDITOR set (defaults to vi)agtermctl on PATH (bundled with agterm); no extra config; pane-scoped overlays need agterm 0.20.0+allow_remote_control yes and listen_on unix:/tmp/kitty-$KITTY_PID| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 6,062 | 5,788 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 867 | 1,264 | +46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 8,835 | 6,431 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,169 | 1,202 | +3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 7,233 | 6,292 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,107 | 1,245 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→fail | 7,234 | 3,949 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,140 | 1,550 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→fail | 6,569 | 2,267 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 901 | 1,258 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | 3,840 | 2,621 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 523 | 1,268 | +142% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 7,478 | 2,564 | -66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,054 | 1,257 | +19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 8,928 | 2,727 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,370 | 1,248 | -9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 9,447 | 2,528 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,710 | 1,262 | -26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | 7,541 | 1,949 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,246 | 1,205 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | 12,023 | 3,066 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,788 | 1,369 | -23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 9,991 | 6,808 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,510 | 1,770 | +17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 7,069 | 2,623 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,049 | 1,305 | +24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 9,470 | 3,324 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,402 | 1,415 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 11,248 | 2,565 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,634 | 1,122 | -31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 8,536 | 1,821 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,355 | 1,076 | -21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | 5,819 | 1,971 | -66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 826 | 1,219 | +48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | 10,742 | 3,403 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,602 | 1,405 | -12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 12,076 | 2,762 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,826 | 1,150 | -37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 5,143 | 6,353 | +24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 834 | 1,103 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 3,604 | 9,145 | +154% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 398 | 1,963 | +393% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 5,369 | 3,707 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 912 | 1,317 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 19 counted toward the lift figure. The other 3 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +9 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 19 comparable cases. 2 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.