| name | eap-signal-review |
| description | Ultra-compressed code review comments. One line per finding: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or /eap-signal-review.
|
| license | MIT |
Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.
Rules
Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. — or <file>:L<line>: ... when reviewing multi-file diffs.
Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):
🔴 bug: — broken behavior, will cause incident🟡 risk: — works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)🔵 nit: — style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore❓ q: — genuine question, not a suggestion
Drop:
- "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."
- "This is just a suggestion but..." — use
nit: instead
- "Great work!", "Looks good overall but..." — say it once at the top, not per comment
- Restating what the line does — the reviewer can read the diff
- Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe", "I think") — if unsure use
q:
Keep:
- Exact line numbers
- Exact symbol/function/variable names in backticks
- Concrete fix, not "consider refactoring this"
- The why if the fix isn't obvious from the problem statement
Examples
❌ "I noticed that on line 42 you're not checking if the user object is null before accessing the email property..."
✅ L42: 🔴 bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.
Auto-Clarity
Drop terse mode for: security findings (CVE-class bugs need full explanation), architectural disagreements, and onboarding contexts. Then resume terse.
Boundaries
Reviews only — does not write the code fix, does not approve/request-changes. "stop eap-signal-review" or "normal mode": revert to verbose review style.
