| name | codereview-family |
| description | Structured code review family for explicit heavy review requests and architecture-sensitive review/evaluation requests. Route to PR/MR review, local changeset review, or architecture review based on the review target and intent. Do not use for routine self-checks or casual bug scans. |
Use this skill family when the user explicitly asks for a heavy review flow, or when the task is already a review/evaluation request and the auto-trigger rules in references/triggering-and-signal.md select a heavy review path.
Read references/triggering-and-signal.md and
references/review-depth-and-delegation.md first. When preparing a final
report, also use references/report-composition.md.
Then route to the smallest sub-skill that matches the target:
changeset-codereview/
Use for explicit review of a commit, branch diff, staged diff, working tree
diff, patch, or local file set.prmr-codereview/
Use for explicit GitHub PR or GitLab MR review when PR/MR-specific
transport, metadata, or comment posting is required.architecture-review/
Use for explicit architecture review or for review/evaluation requests
where layering, contracts, compatibility surfaces, abstractions, or public
API design are the main question.
If the target is a PR/MR or local changeset and the user explicitly asks for
architecture review in addition to ordinary review dimensions, or if the
reviewed scope materially changes layering, ownership boundaries, dependency
direction, compatibility/public surfaces, or other architecture-review
dimensions, keep prmr-codereview or changeset-codereview as the active
skill. For PR/MR reviews, the delegated changeset-codereview workflow owns
applying any paired architecture-review/ dimensions. A paired skill is a
logical report input and normally shares the same review subagent. In both
cases, the active skill owns the main report and must summarize the paired
architecture results in Related review inputs.
Do not use this family for:
- routine implementation self-checks
- quick bug scans during development
- ordinary debugging
- style-only or taste-only feedback
Use the smallest review surface that satisfies the request. The heavier the
workflow, the more explicit the user request should be.
Treat reviewer roles as logical review dimensions rather than mandatory agent
slots. Follow references/review-depth-and-delegation.md: explicit heavy
review defaults to at most one active review subagent per review round, while
the main agent owns scope, guidance discovery, validation, convergence, and
reporting. A review loop may use multiple reviewers sequentially, but each new
issue-discovery round must start with a fresh reviewer. Use parallel reviewers
within one round only when the user explicitly requests them or a stated
high-risk scope justifies independent review.
