القائمة
Review a pull request (a diff or set of changed files) for correctness bugs and write findings to review.md. Use whenever asked to review a PR, a diff, or changed code.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
REPLACE THIS — one-line trigger summary that tells Claude when to load this skill. Write it like a tool docstring, not a title. Concrete trigger phrases beat abstract descriptions. Example "Triggers when the user asks about <specific recurring task in your domain>; expects <input shape>; produces <output shape>."
Walks a diff against a 5-point review checklist. Use when the user asks "review this diff", "what should I check in this PR", or pastes code with a question like "anything wrong with this?". Reads files via Glob/Grep/Read; never edits.
Walks a diff against a 5-point review checklist. Use when the user asks "review this diff", "what should I check in this PR", or pastes code with a question like "anything wrong with this?". Reads files via shell; never edits.
Grounded retrieval over cohort 4 memory seeds (roster, lesson designs, dossiers, transcripts). Use when answering any question about what was taught, who's in the cohort, what dossiers exist, or what was said in a past session.
Q&A flow that produces a complete colleague-target.md and starter Constitution from a 5-field dossier. Use this when a cohort 4 student says they want help defining their AI coding colleague's target task, or when "dossier" / "colleague target" / "what should I build" comes up. Released as homework artifact at end of Lesson 1.
| name | review-pr |
| description | Review a pull request (a diff or set of changed files) for correctness bugs and write findings to review.md. Use whenever asked to review a PR, a diff, or changed code. |
Encodes the Reviewer's process so it's the same every time, not re-explained each PR.
PR.diff, a branch, or named changed files). If it's ambiguous which change is "the PR", ask once — don't guess across multiple candidates.and/or, flipped comparisons), off-by-one, null/empty/zero handling, broken invariants, wrong operator, unhandled error path. These page people; find them first.file:line, and state one concrete input for which it does the wrong thing. No vague "might be an issue".review.md in the repo root. Structure (placeholders — fill from the actual code, don't copy this):
## Correctness
- <file>:<line> — <one line: what's wrong>; for <concrete input> it does
<the wrong thing>. Should be <the fix>.
## Minor
- <clarity / naming / missing-test notes, if any>
## Checked, looks fine
- <what you verified that was OK>
review.md is non-empty and every correctness finding has a file:line + a failure case. A Stop hook enforces non-emptiness.