Menu
Review a pull request with structured severity-based feedback. Use when asked to review a PR, code review, or given a PR number/URL.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "is this over-engineered", or invokes /prune. Complements correctness-focused review; this one only hunts complexity.
Implement code incrementally with quality gates. Use when the user says 'build', 'implement', or when starting the implementation phase of an approved plan.
Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
Structured production-incident investigation. Forces evidence-first hypothesis ranking before any code change. Use when given an error message, Sentry alert, failing log, or 'investigate <X>' request.
Fetch and digest Sentry issue data (issue summary, tags, stack trace, breadcrumbs, latest event) by short ID, numeric issue ID, or sentry.io URL. Org-agnostic - works for any Sentry org the local token can access. Use when the user mentions a Sentry issue or short ID (e.g. MY-PROJECT-4X2), pastes a sentry.io issue URL, or asks to investigate/debug a Sentry error.
Create or update a diagram. Picks mermaid vs drawio per rules/diagrams.md, writes the source file, previews via MCP. Use when the user says 'diagram', '/diagram', or asks for a flowchart/architecture/sequence/state diagram.
| name | review-pr |
| description | Review a pull request with structured severity-based feedback. Use when asked to review a PR, code review, or given a PR number/URL. |
Review the pull request: $ARGUMENTS
Follow this process:
why-not-mechanizable: review workflow guidance; each step requires reading the PR and judging code quality / intent.
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --json title,body,files,commits,additions,deletions,baseRefName,headRefName (review-time: see section note)gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS to see all changes (review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)~/.claude/agents/ for domain-specific review (review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)## Summary
<1-2 sentence overall assessment>
## Verdict: APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / NEEDS_DISCUSSION
<reason>
## Findings
### BLOCKER (must fix before merge)
- **[file:line]** - Description. Why it matters. Suggested fix.
### ISSUE (should fix, may approve with commitment to follow-up)
- **[file:line]** - Description. Recommendation.
### SUGGESTION (take it or leave it)
- **[file:line]** - Description. Alternative approach.
### NIT (style/preference, non-blocking)
- **[file:line]** - Description.
### PRAISE (good patterns worth highlighting)
- **[file:line]** - What's done well and why.
If no $ARGUMENTS provided, review changes in the current branch against the base branch using git diff main...HEAD.