kurko/review-recommendations

Review Recommendations

Before presenting technical recommendations to the user, run them through a critical review to filter out generic advice and verify they apply to the user's specific context.

When to Activate

Use this skill BEFORE presenting:

• Performance optimizations (Dockerfile, database, caching)
• Configuration changes (CI/CD, deployment, infrastructure)
• Architecture suggestions (refactoring, new patterns)
• "Best practices" recommendations
• Any suggestion that changes how something works

Why This Exists

Generic "best practices" advice often doesn't apply to specific contexts:

• Cache mounts help local builds but not CI without explicit setup
• Indexing advice assumes query patterns that may not exist
• Optimization suggestions assume a problem exists
• Refactoring advice assumes the current code is wrong

If you'd fold immediately when challenged on a recommendation, you shouldn't present it in the first place.

How to Use

Before presenting recommendations, spawn a subagent with:

Review these technical recommendations I'm about to give:

[YOUR DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS]

Context about the user's situation:
[RELEVANT CONTEXT - where builds run, current performance, actual problem]

For each recommendation, answer:

1. PROBLEM CHECK: Is there actually a problem to solve? What evidence do we have?
   - What's the current metric (build time, response time, etc.)?
   - Is that metric actually bad, or just "could be better"?

2. CONTEXT CHECK: Does this apply to THIS user's setup?
   - Where does this run? (CI, local, production)
   - What tools/services are they using?
   - What's already in place that might make this redundant?

3. ASSUMPTION CHECK: What am I assuming?
   - Am I assuming they have a problem they didn't mention?
   - Am I assuming infrastructure that doesn't exist?
   - Am I giving generic advice I'd give to anyone?

4. CONFIDENCE CHECK: Would I defend this if challenged?
   - If an expert said "that won't help here," would I agree?
   - Is this based on their specific situation or general knowledge?

5. VERDICT: Keep, modify, or drop?
   - KEEP: Specific to their context, addresses real problem
   - MODIFY: Good idea but needs caveats for their situation
   - DROP: Generic advice, no evidence it applies, or no real problem

Return a filtered list with only recommendations that pass these checks.

Example: Dockerfile Optimization

Bad approach (what went wrong):

User: Review our Dockerfile for speed improvements

Claude: Here are 4 optimizations:
1. BuildKit cache mounts for bundle install
2. APT cache mounts
3. Separate Tailwind build
4. --jobs flag for bundle

Good approach (using this skill):

User: Review our Dockerfile for speed improvements

Claude: [Spawns review subagent with draft recommendations]

Subagent review:
- Current deploy time: 2m35s (is this actually slow? No baseline given)
- Builds run in: GitHub Actions CI
- Already has: registry caching via Kamal

1. Cache mounts - DROP: Don't persist in CI without explicit actions/cache setup.
   User already has layer caching via registry.
2. APT cache mounts - DROP: Same issue.
3. Tailwind separation - DROP: COPY . . invalidates the layer anyway.
4. --jobs flag - MODIFY: Harmless but Bundler 2.x already parallelizes.

Verdict: The Dockerfile is already well-optimized for their CI setup.

Final response to user:

Claude: I reviewed the Dockerfile looking for optimizations. Given that you're
building in GitHub Actions with registry caching already configured, the
Dockerfile is already well-optimized. The 2m35s deploy time is mostly
image push and Kamal orchestration, not build time.

Is there a specific part of the deploy that feels slow?

Red Flags That Trigger This Skill

• "Here are N things you could improve..."
• "Best practices suggest..."
• "You should consider..."
• "A common optimization is..."
• Listing multiple suggestions without checking if any apply

Output

After the subagent review, either:

1. Present filtered recommendations - Only those that passed all checks
2. Ask clarifying questions - If you need more context to evaluate
3. Report no changes needed - If nothing applies to their situation

Never present generic advice. Every recommendation must be specific to the user's context and address a verified problem.