mcpField
N
nutmeg-review

nutmeg-review

github.com/withqwertyTesting & quality55163 installsUpdated today
Repository

About nutmeg-review

nutmeg-review is a skill for reviewing football data code and visualizations. It dispatches data or chart reviewers based on the task, then organizes findings by severity.

Key features

  1. 01Dispatch specialized reviewers by task
  2. 02Check football data processing code
  3. 03Review chart code and visual output
  4. 04Run data and chart reviews in parallel
  5. 05Organize findings by severity

Use cases

  1. 01Review code that fetches and transforms match data
  2. 02Check whether a chart presents football data correctly
  3. 03Test edge cases in interactive charts
  4. 04Assess data processing and chart rendering together

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/withqwerty/nutmeg --skill nutmeg-review

After installing, type/nutmeg-reviewin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

Review

Dispatch specialised reviewers to check football data code and visualisations for correctness, convention compliance, and edge cases.

Accuracy

Read and follow ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/docs/accuracy-guardrail.md before answering any question about provider-specific facts.

First: check profile

Read .nutmeg.user.md. If it doesn't exist, continue with sensible defaults (Python and pandas, intermediate level) and suggest running /nutmeg setup at the end.

Determine scope

Look at what the user wants reviewed. Read the relevant files. Then decide which reviewers to dispatch:

SignalDispatch
Code processes football data (fetching, filtering, transforming, computing metrics)data-reviewer agent
Code renders a chart or visualisationchart-reviewer agent (Mode 1: Code Review)
User provides a URL or says "check how it looks"chart-reviewer agent (Mode 2: Visual Inspection)
Chart has filters, tooltips, state, or dynamic datachart-reviewer agent (Mode 3: Interactive Edge Cases)
Code imports @withqwerty/campos-* (React + campos)chart-reviewer agent (Mode 4: React + Campos) — pass ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/_shared/campos-bridge.md in context
Code does both data processing AND chart renderingBoth agents in parallel

Always dispatch at least one. If unclear, dispatch both — redundant findings are better than missed issues.

Detection for Mode 4: grep the reviewed files for @withqwerty/campos- or from "@withqwerty/campos. Any match activates Mode 4 alongside Mode 1.

Dispatch

Spawn agents in parallel when dispatching multiple. Each agent receives:

  1. The file paths to review
  2. The user's profile (language, provider, experience level)
  3. Which mode(s) to run (for chart-reviewer)
  4. Context: what the user said they built and what they're worried about
Data reviewer prompt template
Review the football data code in [FILE_PATHS].

The user is working with [PROVIDER] data in [LANGUAGE].
They built: [DESCRIPTION]
Their concern: [WHAT_THEY_SAID]

Follow the full review checklist in your agent prompt. Use search_docs to verify
provider-specific facts (coordinate systems, qualifier IDs, event types).
Chart reviewer prompt template
Review the chart code in [FILE_PATHS].

Mode(s): [Code Review / Visual Inspection / Interactive Edge Cases]
The user is building: [DESCRIPTION]
Their concern: [WHAT_THEY_SAID]
Stack: [LANGUAGE + LIBRARIES from profile]
[If visual inspection: URL or instructions to render]

Load ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/brainstorm/references/chart-canon.md for convention checking.

Synthesise findings

After both agents report back:

  1. Deduplicate — if both flag the same issue (e.g., wrong coordinate system), merge into one finding
  2. Sort by severity — Critical first, then Warning, then Info
  3. Group logically — Data issues, then Rendering issues, then Convention issues, then Edge cases
  4. Present concisely — table format with severity, location, issue, fix

When to suggest visual inspection

If the chart-reviewer's code review finds potential rendering issues but can't confirm without seeing the output, suggest:

"The code review found [N] potential rendering issues. Want me to visually inspect the chart? I'll need a URL or you can run it locally."

Don't require visual inspection — many users can't easily serve their chart locally. Code review alone catches most issues.

After review

If findings are found:

  • Ask the user which ones to fix
  • For Critical issues, offer to fix them directly
  • For Warning/Info, explain the trade-off and let them decide

If no findings:

  • Say so clearly. Don't invent issues to justify the review.
  • Optionally mention what was checked so the user knows the review was thorough.

Comments

Markdown supported