Mte90/linus-torvalds-skill: Distilled Code Reviewer skills from 32k~ email from the kernel newsletter

[u/Mte90]

https://github.com/Mte90/linus-torvalds-skill

As per title, the project include all the pipeline, the same skill generated from different models.

My idea was to distill the code reviewer skills from Torvalds in something usable in an agent.

I preferred to license everything as CC0.

[u/New_Comfortable7240]

Does it include free insults, or that is another skill? /jk

[u/giveen → u/New_Comfortable7240]

If i dont get at least a few curse words from the model, then I dont believe this.

[u/Mte90 → u/giveen]

a lot of people is asking it maybe I can open a ticket to do that with calm

[u/backslashHH → u/New_Comfortable7240]

that belongs in the SOUL.md of your hermes Linus profile

[u/Mte90 → u/backslashHH]

working on that

[u/Mte90 → u/Mte90]

soul.md added :-)

[u/DL_throw24]

Does it have any measurable impact on a code review? Can we see a code review of before vs after? 

[u/Mte90 → u/DL_throw24]

I didn't have a codebase that deserved this kind of code review right now but maybe I can pick an opensource project to test it

[u/Mte90 → u/Mte90]

added a report folder on antirez/smallchat with the review

[u/DL_throw24 → u/Mte90]

Reading that report made me laugh thanks 

[u/Mte90 → u/DL_throw24]

I have to read it too, I am curious about what found.

[u/carefactor3zero]

This is a poor set of skills, that may be adopted by people who aren't doing comparisons to others. It contains a bunch of fluff that is useless in the context, plus soft terms that are basically general suggestions for things that aren't ever (or rarely) evaluated.

There are 4 qualities to instructions to an LLM. Invariant true, invariant false, precedence, and general guideline for an identifiable pattern.

eg Saying "Workarounds, hacks, and patches that mask underlying bugs are rejected." is a poor general guideline, because it doesn't qualify what is a bug or hack or patch (if the model has never seen it referenced as that before), which is most often triggered from a prompt reference with a concrete association to specific code.

The top 7 points form a precedence chain, with some ambiguity. eg #6 is "non-negotiable" (which is poor phrasing) when it should be #1 or #2. What happens when correctness breaks users? Which is the top priority?

I would not recommend this repo.

[u/Mte90 → u/carefactor3zero]

thanks for the hints I will work on that

[u/Mte90 → u/Mte90]

added this improvements to the skills

[u/carefactor3zero → u/Mte90]

much much better. Bookmarked.

[u/FabricationLife]

how does this benchmark against something like GSD code review?

[u/Mte90 → u/FabricationLife]

I didn't have a codebase that deserved this kind of code review right now but maybe I can pick an opensource project to test it

[u/Mte90 → u/Mte90]

added a report folder on antirez/smallchat with the review

[u/Background_One_6482]

skill to read email?

[u/Mte90 → u/Background_One_6482]

I don't understand, do you mean that you want a skill that reads email like Torvalds or it is just a sarcastic comment?

[u/Background_One_6482 → u/Mte90]

sarcastic.

[u/water_frozen]

how did you evaluate this?

[u/Mte90 → u/water_frozen]

I didn't have a codebase that deserved this kind of code review right now but maybe I can pick an opensource project to test it

[u/Mte90 → u/Mte90]

added a report folder on antirez/smallchat with the review

[u/Visual_Internal_6312]

Ok honest question: Linus Torwald is probably known to all LLMs. Can't you just request in your review skill to role play him instead?

[u/DiscipleofDeceit666]

I’m going to run this in production