CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

cursor-review

Run a Cursor Composer review as an advisory second opinion while keeping the primary review verdict on the host brain. Use when user invokes cursor:review, asks Cursor to review, or wants composer to sanity-check a diff. Cursor never owns APPROVE/REQUEST_CHANGES.

75

Quality

93%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

The canonical home for this skill is cursor-review in Chachamaru127/claude-code-harness

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

cursor:review - Advisory Cursor Review

Cursor Composer (composer-2.5-fast) を read-only second opinion として使う review skill。primary verdict は host brain (Opus / Claude role) が出す。

Quick Reference

cursor:review --base origin/main
cursor:review "Phase 88.5 command namespace diff"

Rules

  • Cursor review is advisory. The final verdict must come from the host reviewer.

  • Do not pass --write to cursor-companion.sh.

  • Use resolver/model routing, not direct env checks:

    bash scripts/resolve-impl-backend.sh --backend cursor --role reviewer
    bash scripts/model-routing.sh --host cursor --role worker --field model
  • Prefer the existing harness-review contract when a full review is requested. This command exists for users who explicitly ask for the Cursor lane.

Flow

  1. Resolve the Harness helper root:

    HARNESS_PLUGIN_ROOT="${HARNESS_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-}}"
    if [ -z "$HARNESS_PLUGIN_ROOT" ] && [ -n "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR:-}" ]; then
      probe="$(cd "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}" && pwd)"
      while [ "$probe" != "/" ] && [ ! -d "$probe/scripts" ]; do
        probe="$(cd "$probe/.." && pwd)"
      done
      [ -d "$probe/scripts" ] && HARNESS_PLUGIN_ROOT="$probe"
    fi
    if [ -z "$HARNESS_PLUGIN_ROOT" ]; then
      echo "ERROR: HARNESS_PLUGIN_ROOT is not set and could not be derived from CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT or CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR" >&2
      exit 2
    fi
  2. Determine review scope:

    BASE_REF="${TASK_BASE_REF:-origin/main}"
    REVIEW_SCOPE="${ARGUMENTS:-}"
    if [ -n "${REVIEW_SCOPE}" ]; then
      set -- ${REVIEW_SCOPE}
      while [ "$#" -gt 0 ]; do
        case "$1" in
          --base)
            BASE_REF="${2:?--base requires a ref}"
            shift 2
            ;;
          --base=*)
            BASE_REF="${1#--base=}"
            shift
            ;;
          *)
            shift
            ;;
        esac
      done
    fi
    DIFF_STAT="$(git diff --stat "${BASE_REF}..HEAD")"
    DIFF_TEXT="$(git diff "${BASE_REF}..HEAD")"
  3. Ask Cursor in read-only mode:

    PROMPT="$(cat <<EOF

Review this diff as an advisory second opinion. Base ref: ${BASE_REF} Requested scope: ${ARGUMENTS:-full diff}

Focus on bugs, regressions, missing tests, and unsafe assumptions. Do not propose broad refactors.

Diff stat: ${DIFF_STAT}

Diff: ${DIFF_TEXT} EOF )" bash "${HARNESS_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/cursor-companion.sh" task "${PROMPT}"

4. Host reads Cursor's output and performs the primary review:

- Findings first, ordered by severity.
- Mark Cursor-originated points as advisory when used.
- `APPROVE` / `REQUEST_CHANGES` must be the host decision, not a copied Cursor verdict.

## Output

Use the standard review shape:

- findings
- open questions
- validation run
- final host verdict
Repository
Chachamaru127/claude-code-harness
Last updated
First committed

Canonical home

Chachamaru127/claude-code-harness
In sync

since Jul 27, 2026

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.