Review convention violations

VerifiedSafe

Analyzes a file (under lab/tasks/ or wiki/) for violations of authoring conventions. Reads the relevant convention files, checks every line, and produces a detailed report with line numbers for each infraction. Helps ensure files comply with required standards before review.

Sby Skills Guide Bot
TestingIntermediate
906/2/2026
Claude Code
#lab-authoring#conventions#review#linting

Recommended for

Our review

Reviews a task or wiki file for violations of lab authoring conventions against the official convention documents.

Strengths

  • Line-by-line checking against every rule from the convention files.
  • Generates a self-contained report that can be consumed by another agent.
  • Handles special cases like setup.md and wiki files correctly.

Limitations

  • Requires the convention files to exist at a fixed path.
  • Only reports violations, does not fix them.
  • Does not check rules not documented in the convention files.
When to use it

Use this skill before submitting a lab or after editing task/wiki files to ensure they adhere to the established conventions.

When not to use it

Do not use it for free-form style review or technical correctness checking; use a linter or human reviewer instead.

Security analysis

Safe
Quality score85/100

The skill only reads convention files and the target file, then writes a report. It does not execute any system commands or network requests, and there is no risk of data exfiltration or destructive actions.

No concerns found

Examples

Review a task file
Review the file lab/tasks/required/task-2.md for convention violations.
Review a wiki file
Check wiki/web-development.md against the lab conventions.

name: review-via-conventions description: Review a task file for convention violations argument-hint: "<path>"

Review a single file for violations of the lab authoring conventions. The file must be under lab/tasks/ or wiki/.

Steps

  1. Parse $ARGUMENTS to get the file path. Accept paths under lab/tasks/ (e.g., lab/tasks/setup.md, lab/tasks/required/task-2.md) or wiki/ (e.g., wiki/web-development.md). If the path is missing or does not point to a file under one of these directories, ask the user.
  2. Read the target file.
  3. Read the convention files that apply to the target file:
    • For lab/tasks/ files:
      • instructors/context/conventions/common.md — writing conventions (4.1–4.23)
      • instructors/context/conventions/tasks.md — task structure (Section 3) and design principles (Section 12)
    • For wiki/ files:
      • instructors/context/conventions/common.md — writing conventions (4.1–4.23)
      • instructors/context/conventions/wiki.md — wiki file structure and section patterns
  4. Go through the target file line by line. Check it against every convention in both files. Flag each violation with its line number.

Rules

  • The convention files are the single source of truth. Check every rule they contain — do not skip any.
  • Do not invent rules beyond what the convention files state.
  • Be strict: flag every violation, no matter how small.
  • Do not fix anything — only report.
  • If a convention does not apply to the file (e.g., the file has no Docker commands), skip that category and note "Not applicable."
  • For lab/tasks/setup.md: skip task-only conventions (Section 3 template, acceptance criteria format). Apply all common.md conventions.

Output format

Write the report to tmp/review-via-conventions/<repo-root-path>, where <repo-root-path> is the file's path from the repository root (e.g., tmp/review-via-conventions/lab/tasks/setup.md for lab/tasks/setup.md, tmp/review-via-conventions/wiki/web-development.md for wiki/web-development.md). Create intermediate directories if they do not exist.

The report must be self-contained so another session or agent can act on it without extra context. Structure:

  1. Header — file path reviewed, date, convention files used.
  2. Findings — grouped by convention number (e.g., "4.2. Terminal commands", "Section 3. Task document structure"). Under each group, list findings as numbered items with line numbers. If a group has no findings, write "No issues found."
  3. Summary — total violation count and a short overall assessment.

After writing the file, print its path in the conversation so the user can find it.

Related skills