tobihagemann/turbo-apply-findings
Apply findings by making the suggested code changes. Applies accepted verdicts, escalates ambiguous findings to the user, and offers to note genuine improvements for later. Use when the user asks to \"apply findings\", \"apply fixes\", \"apply suggestions\", \"apply accepted findings\", \"fix the findings\", or \"apply the review results\".
npx skills add https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo --skill apply-findings
Apply evaluated findings from the conversation context. Findings must have been through $evaluate-findings first.
Collect all findings from the conversation context. Findings should have Verdict columns (Apply, Skip, Escalate) from $evaluate-findings.
If findings are unevaluated (raw output without verdicts), stop and say to run $evaluate-findings first.
Group Apply findings by file path and apply in file order to minimize context switching. For each finding:
If a finding references code that has changed since it was generated (e.g., by a prior fix in this same run), re-assess whether it still applies. Skip if the code has diverged.
When an escalated finding's outcome would change what the other fixes should look like, settle it in Step 3 before applying them.
For findings with Escalate verdict, use request_user_input to let the user decide. Output the finding's technical detail as text first, then state the question as the decision the user owns. When the finding is a disagreement between two artifacts, ask which behavior is wanted; reconciling the artifacts follows from that answer.
Recommend the genuinely best option: place it first and append (Recommended) to its label, judging "best" on technical merit alone (the soundest engineering outcome), independent of how closely the option conforms to the task's original scope. When the choice hinges on product intent or domain knowledge you lack and merit cannot settle it, say so instead of forcing a pick. Give each option a plain-language description that carries the trade-off: its concrete effect and what it costs. When the recommended option also widens the changeset's scope, name both its merit and that scope cost so the user can weigh them. When the choice is architectural rather than a matter of preference, offer the consultation option in place of whichever alternative fits the finding least, keeping the question at three options.
$note-improvement skill to capture it$consult-claude skill for a second opinion on the choice, or the $consult-oracle skill when standard approaches have already failed. Then apply, skip, or note the finding with that answer in handReport the outcome as a table, one row per finding, keeping every cell to a single line:
| File | Finding | Outcome |
|------|---------|---------|
Where Outcome is one of:
Keep the report to the table. Add prose only where an escalation's resolution changed what the other fixes look like.
Then call update_plan to mark this step completed and continue with the next step of the active workflow.
Take tobihagemann/turbo-apply-findings from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.