Code Review Skills

Refresh golden values from a GitHub Actions workflow run (failing-only or all jobs), score the change with average normalized relative differences, and produce a PR-ready summary. Use when the user asks to update goldens for a CI run, refresh golden values from a workflow ID, or generate a golden-value diff summary for a PR description.

>- Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks you to review, look over, "take a look at", or check whether something is ready to merge in mcp-toolbox, e.g. "review #3703", "can you look at this PR", "is this good to merge", or when they paste an mcp-toolbox PR link. approves, requests changes, comments, labels, or merges on its own.

>- Review, design, and refactor TensorRT-LLM PyTorch MoE code for architecture fit, clean code, maintainability, and testability. Always use for any modification, review, refactor, or design planning that touches MoE modules, including tensorrt_llm/_torch/modules/fused_moe, ConfigurableMoE, MoE backends, MoEScheduler/moe_scheduler.py, forward execution/chunking, communication strategies, EPLB, quantization/weight handling, routing, factories, MoE docs, or MoE tests. Also use when the user asks whether a MoE design follows the current architecture or whether a MoE refactor is reasonable.

Produce PR-ready output for redis-py — a one-line commit message and a copy-pasteable Markdown PR description (Change summary + Test coverage, 5–6 paragraphs) covering all staged changes plus the commits already on the current branch. Trigger whenever the user's message mentions any of these keywords or phrases: "PR", "pr", "PR description", "PR draft", "pull request", "the PR block", "commit msg", "commit message", or otherwise asks for a commit message or PR write-up for their local changes.

Review a GitHub issue or pull request URL as a redis-py maintainer, with a staged assessment of whether the claim is real, practically important, already solvable with supported functionality, correctly scoped, better served by another design, and worth maintainer and contributor effort. Use when assessing issue validity or severity, deciding whether an issue should be prioritized or closed, determining whether a requested feature represents an unmet need rather than a discoverability or usage gap, judging whether a PR is worth bringing to mergeable quality, comparing open PRs or alternative designs, separating code quality from repository readiness, or drafting a concise maintainer assessment. When closure, additional evidence, or code changes should be requested, also produce a polite, concise, complete, copy-paste-ready maintainer comment.

Review a GitHub issue or pull request URL as a redis-py maintainer, with a staged assessment of whether the claim is real, practically important, already solvable with supported functionality, correctly scoped, better served by another design, and worth maintainer and contributor effort. Use when assessing issue validity or severity, deciding whether an issue should be prioritized or closed, determining whether a requested feature represents an unmet need rather than a discoverability or usage gap, judging whether a PR is worth bringing to mergeable quality, comparing open PRs or alternative designs, separating code quality from repository readiness, or drafting a concise maintainer assessment. When closure, additional evidence, or code changes should be requested, also produce a polite, concise, complete, copy-paste-ready maintainer comment.

Produce PR-ready output for redis-py — a one-line commit message and a copy-pasteable Markdown PR description (Change summary + Test coverage, 5–6 paragraphs) covering all staged changes plus the commits already on the current branch. Trigger whenever the user's message mentions any of these keywords or phrases: "PR", "pr", "PR description", "PR draft", "pull request", "the PR block", "commit msg", "commit message", or otherwise asks for a commit message or PR write-up for their local changes.

Pull request creation workflow for Bitwarden Clients. Use when creating PRs, writing PR descriptions, or preparing branches for review. Triggered by "create PR", "pull request", "open PR", "gh pr create", "PR description".

Use when reviewing PRs that touch the Reader's multi-protocol social surfaces (`client/reader/social/`, `client/reader/atmosphere/`, `client/reader/mastodon/`, `packages/api-core/src/reader-{atmosphere,mastodon}/`, `packages/api-queries/src/reader-{atmosphere,mastodon}.ts`). Captures the review rubric + the recurring smells from the CM-625 / CM-658 / CM-660 / CM-662 slice cycle.

> Guidance for creating pull requests and handling PR review comments in the Agent Framework repository. Use this when writing a PR description (filling out the PR template) or when responding to and resolving review comments on an existing PR.

> Guidance for creating pull requests and handling PR review comments in the Agent Framework repository. Use this when writing a PR description (filling out the PR template) or when responding to and resolving review comments on an existing PR.

> Code quality checks, linting, formatting, and type checking commands for the Agent Framework Python codebase. Use this when running checks, fixing lint errors, or troubleshooting CI failures.

Finalizes any PR for merge by verifying title/description match implementation AND performing code review for best practices. Use when asked to "finalize PR", "check PR description", "review commit message", before merging any PR, or when PR implementation changed during review. Do NOT use for extracting lessons or investigating build failures.

Add a `.changelog/<PR_NUMBER>.txt` entry for a GitHub Pull Request, commit, and push.

Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, insecure deserialization), code smells, N+1 queries, naming issues, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code quality audits, identifying refactoring opportunities, or checking for security issues. Invoke for PR reviews, code quality checks, refactoring suggestions, review code, code quality. Complements specialized skills (security-reviewer, test-master) by providing broad-scope review across correctness, performance, maintainability, and test coverage in a single pass.

Writes, optimizes, and debugs C++ applications using modern C++20/23 features, template metaprogramming, and high-performance systems techniques. Use when building or refactoring C++ code requiring concepts, ranges, coroutines, SIMD optimization, or careful memory management — or when addressing performance bottlenecks, concurrency issues, and build system configuration with CMake.

Writes, debugs, and refactors JavaScript code using modern ES2023+ features, async/await patterns, ESM module systems, and Node.js APIs. Use when building vanilla JavaScript applications, implementing Promise-based async flows, optimising browser or Node.js performance, working with Web Workers or Fetch API, or reviewing .js/.mjs/.cjs files for correctness and best practices.

Required reading whenever any shell_* tool is available. Teaches the foreground/background dichotomy (terminal_exec auto-promotes past 30s, returns a job_id you poll with terminal_job_logs), the standard envelope shape (exit_code, stdout, stdout_truncated_bytes, output_handle, semantic_status, warning, auto_backgrounded, job_id), output handle pagination via terminal_output_get, when to read semantic_status instead of raw exit_code (grep/rg/find/diff/test exit 1 is NOT an error), the destructive-warning surface (rm -rf, git push --force, DROP TABLE), tool preference (use files-tools / gcu-tools / hive_tools before raw shell), and the bash-only-on-macOS policy. Skipping this leads to "tool returned no output" surprises, orphaned jobs, and panic over benign grep exit codes.

First-time analysis of a repository with no prior reviewer outcomes. Crawl historical merged-PR review feedback with the gh CLI (plus any preloaded samples), extract the team's review norms, and synthesize the initial per-repo review-style prompt. Use this for a cold-start repo; use continual-learning instead once the reviewer has accumulated finding outcomes.

Run a deterministic, read-only health check on an Obsidian wiki. Use for lint, vault health check, audit wiki health, find orphans, find dead links, frontmatter audit, provenance audit, or wiki audit. Reports graph, link, frontmatter, provenance-ledger, empty-section, and stale-index findings; it does not reason broadly or repair files.

Generate a pull request description for the FAST repository using the provided template.

Use this skill when contributing changes to the FAST monorepo — creating pull requests, generating change files, writing PR descriptions, and keeping documentation up to date.

Review PyTorch tutorials pull requests for content quality, code correctness, build compatibility, and style. Use when reviewing PRs, when asked to review code changes, or when the user mentions "review PR", "code review", or "check this PR".

> Run an AI impact assessment — structured intake, risk analysis, regulatory classification per regime in scope, policy consistency diff, and recommendation with conditions. Uses the house-style structure learned from the seed impact assessment in `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md`. Use when user says "impact assessment for", "assess this AI use case", "run an AIA", "generate an AIA", "we need to document this AI system", "AI risk assessment for X", or follows a conditional triage result.

> Diff a new AI regulation or guidance against your current governance posture — surfaces gaps, priorities, and a remediation plan with owners and deadlines. Use when an AI regulation moves (or you learn about one you missed), or when user says "new reg just dropped", "does [regulation] affect us", "gap analysis for EU AI Act", "compliance check against [AI law or guidance]", or pastes regulatory text.

> Diff a proposed handbook change against the current version, flag ripple effects and state supplement impacts. Use when user says "update the handbook", "add this to the handbook", "handbook change", or has a policy ready for insertion.

> Draft an employment policy with state supplements where law differs across the jurisdictional footprint. Use when the user says "draft a [topic] policy", "we need a policy on", "update our [topic] policy", or names a policy gap.

> Check installed community skills for updates. Shows a diff and requires explicit approval before applying. Use when the user says "check for updates", "update my skills", "anything new for my installed skills", or when invoked from the registry-sync agent.

> Diff a new or changed regulation against current privacy policy and practice — outputs a gap list and a remediation plan with owners and dates. Use when a new reg drops, the user asks "does [regulation] affect us", "gap analysis for [state privacy law]", "compliance check against [reg]", or pastes regulatory text.

Diff a specific regulatory change against the indexed policy library. Use when a reg has changed and you need to know which policies it touches and what the gap is, when the user says "diff this reg against our policies", "which policy does this affect", or "gap analysis", or when reg-feed-watcher hands off a material item.

Produce a proposed marked-up policy redraft that closes a gap found by /regulatory-legal:gaps or /regulatory-legal:policy-diff. A first draft for internal review — not for direct application to approved policy documents. Use when the user says "redraft the policy", "draft the policy fix", "mark up the policy", or when gap-surfacer hands off a gap for drafting.

Check regulatory feeds now and report what's new since the last check, filtered by your materiality threshold. Use when the user says "check the feeds", "what's new", "regulatory update", when running from the scheduled agent, or when manually pasting a regulatory development for classification and diff.

>- Generate commit messages following Conventional Commits format. Use when creating commits, writing commit messages, or the user asks to commit changes.

>- naming conventions (camelCase, PascalCase, UPPER_SNAKE_CASE), linting rules, no `any` without reason, no `!important` in styles, and constant extraction. Use when writing or refactoring any TypeScript/JavaScript code in this repo, when ESLint or Prettier issues come up, or when the user mentions code style, lint, naming conventions, or general code quality.

>- Create and review pull requests following project standards including title format, description template, and review checklist. Use when creating PRs, writing PR descriptions, or reviewing pull requests.

Use when the user asks for a security review of a pull request, commit, branch diff, working-tree patch, or other Git-backed change set.

Identifies the local user's GitHub account and git identity before performing code reviews. Load this skill at the start of any PR review, code review, or commit log analysis so findings can be framed relative to the user's own prior comments, commits, and approval status.

KJ/workerd C++ style guidelines for code review. Covers naming, type usage, memory management, error handling, inheritance, constness, and formatting conventions. Load this skill when reviewing or writing C++ code in the workerd codebase.

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

Guidelines for posting pull request review comments via GitHub CLI, including suggested edits format, handling unresolved comments, etiquette, and report/issue tracking. Load this skill when reviewing a PR via GitHub and posting inline comments.

Memory safety, thread safety, concurrency, and critical detection patterns for workerd code review. Covers V8/KJ boundary hazards, lifetime management, cross-thread safety, and coroutine pitfalls. Load this skill when reviewing any C++ code.

Performance optimization, API design & compatibility, security vulnerabilities, and standards spec compliance for workerd code review. Covers tcmalloc-aware perf analysis, compat flags, autogates, web standards adherence, and security patterns. Load this skill when reviewing API changes, performance-sensitive code, security-relevant code, or standards implementations.

Create GitHub pull requests using the gh CLI. Use when the user wants to create a new PR, submit code for review, or open a pull request. Trigger keywords - create PR, pull request, new PR, submit for review, code review.

Review a GitHub pull request by summarizing its diff and key design decisions. Use when the user wants to review a PR, understand changes in a branch, or get a code review summary. Trigger keywords - review PR, review pull request, summarize PR, summarize diff, code review, review branch, PR summary, diff summary.

中文 review 沟通参考——话术模板、分级标注（必须修复/建议修改/仅供参考）、国内团队常见反模式应对。仅在用户显式 /chinese-code-review 时调用，不要根据上下文自动触发。

收到代码审查反馈后、实施建议之前使用，尤其当反馈不明确或技术上有疑问时——需要技术严谨性和验证，而非敷衍附和或盲目执行

完成任务、实现重要功能或合并前使用，用于验证工作成果是否符合要求