| name | local-code-review |
| description | Canonical code/infra closeout workflow — freezes scope, resolves the exact review target (local/commit/branch/PR), runs a non-mutating review, resolves a cross-family reviewer, and requires separate behavior proof for user-visible code or infrastructure changes. Never use as a learner-content semantic gate. |
| argument-hint | [local | commit <sha> | branch <branch> <base> | pr <number>] |
Closeout Review: $ARGUMENTS
This skill supports only code and infra review profiles. A normal BIO
learner-content request routes to $curriculum-lifecycle (or directly to
$track-completion for one module), which owns the single bounded
$post-build-review gate. resolve-reviewer fails before route selection for
any learner-content semantic profile or domain. Do not duplicate post-build
semantic review here.
Scope: this is the closeout gate for a change you (or another agent)
already made — not a PR-comment bot. For posting inline PR comments, use
the official /code-review:code-review plugin instead; this skill can
still drive the target-selection and scope-freeze steps underneath it.
This skill defines orchestration and policy for closeout review. It does
not implement the strict finding verifier or reviewer process isolation —
those are separate, later slices (issue #5281 children 2 and 3). What it
does guarantee:
- the review target is explicit and deterministic — never inferred from
whatever the working tree happens to look like;
- scope is frozen once, before the first review pass, and visibly
re-checked as the review/fix loop runs;
- review preparation never mutates the source tree;
- the reviewer is a different model family from the author, resolved
by a single canonical helper — not re-derived per skill invocation;
- every finding is adjudicated explicitly — nothing is silently dropped,
and nothing is applied "as-is" without an adjudication;
- CLI/API/UI/generated-artifact changes require a separate, source-blind
behavior proof — code review alone cannot close them out.
Parse arguments
$ARGUMENTS selects the review target mode, explicitly — never inferred
from git status:
local — staged + unstaged + untracked changes in the working tree.commit <sha> — one already-made commit, diffed against its parent.branch <branch> <base> — a branch diffed against an explicit base ref.pr <number> — a PR diffed against its actual base (not an assumed
default branch).
If the user gives you a PR number, a commit SHA, or says "review my branch,"
that is the mode — do not fall back to local because the working tree
looks clean. A clean working tree is not evidence that a commit or PR was
reviewed (see Step 1 below).
Execute
Read and follow local-code-review-checklist.md
in full. It drives .venv/bin/python -m scripts.review.closeout_cli for every
step that has a deterministic answer (target resolution, scope-baseline
freeze and breakers, reviewer resolution, findings adjudication) and tells
you exactly what to reason about yourself.
Output
Print a structured report to the conversation (the checklist's Step 8 gives
the exact shape). Do NOT write a file unless specifically asked.
