name	local-reviewing
description	Opens a browser-based diff viewer where the USER personally reviews and approves CLAUDE's code changes before committing or pushing. Use this skill when the user wants to inspect Claude's work themselves — e.g. "let me review your changes", "open a review session", "put your changes up for review", "I want to approve before we push". Do NOT use this skill when the user asks Claude to review THEIR code or give feedback on their changes — that's a normal code review task, not a local review session.
allowed-tools	mcp__local-review__startreview

IMPORTANT: This skill critically relies on the availability of the local-review MCP server. If it is not available, tell the user that you're not able to provide local reviews due to a misconfiguration, and print the list of available MCP tools to help debugging.

The high-level workflow looks like this:

Start a review by calling startreview() and give the returned URL to the user
Call await_comments(), and wait for a return value 2a) ... if receiving a comment, address it: - If you need to ask a question or report an issue, call respond_comment() with a message - Once the work is done, call resolve_comment() to mark it as resolved Go to (2) to await the next set of comments. 2b) ... if receiving REVIEW APPROVED, you are done and the review is approved.

Reference:

Here's a detailed reference of the MCP server's available tools:

Tool `startreview()`

Starts a code review session for a commit, range, or live changes.

Parameters:

commit: Review changes for a specific commit (e.g., 'abc123', 'HEAD', 'main')
range: Review changes for a commit range (e.g., 'main..feature', 'abc123..def456')
since: Review live changes since a commit (defaults to 'HEAD')
title: Optional title for the review (will be used as the page title)

Note: Exactly one of commit, range, or since must be specified.

The since form includes all changes in the local directory that are not committed to git. The range and commit forms only include the changes that are part of the specified git commit range, independent of the current working directory.

Usage:

This is typically used in one of three ways:

Reviewing changes just before committing: startreview(since='HEAD')
Reviewing changes just after committing changes: startreview(since='HEAD~1')
Reviewing a PR before pushing it: startreview(range='HEAD~3..HEAD')

Tool `await_comments()`

Wait for review comments to be posted by the user.

Blocks until either:

A comment is available (returns dict with comment details)
The review is approved and no comments remain (returns "REVIEW APPROVED")

Tool `resolve_comment()`

Marks a comment as resolved. Use this after you have addressed a comment.

Parameters

comment_id: The ID of the comment to mark as resolved

Returns a status message indicating success or failure.

Tool `respond_comment()`

Sends a reply message on a comment thread. Use this to ask clarifying questions, report difficulties, or provide non-trivial context back to the reviewer.

Parameters

comment_id: The ID of the comment to reply to
message: The reply message to send

Returns a status message indicating success or failure.

Workflow

To reiterate, the high-level workflow looks like this.

Start a review by calling startreview() and give the returned URL to the user
Call await_comments(), and wait for a return value 2a) ... if receiving a comment, address it: - If you need to ask a question or report an issue, call respond_comment() with a message - Once the work is done, call resolve_comment() to mark it as resolved Go to (2) and await the next set of comments. 2b) ... if receiving REVIEW APPROVED, you are done and the review is approved.

The correct parameters for startreview() depend on the intent behind starting the review. The two most common cases are:

Reviewing local changes from the current agent session or PR. In this case, the since= form is used to give a complete picture of everything that's going on in the worktree.
Previewing a PR before opening it remotely. In this case the range= form is used to make it more obvious if important files are missing from the PR, or if unrelated changes were accidentally included.

If the parameters are not clear from the context, ask the user for clarification instead of guessing.

The starting point for both since and range reviews is usually the merge-base of the current branch.

If a comment is unclear or missing important information, use respond_comment() to ask for clarification. Always prefer to ask instead of making assumptions, and ensure you have a complete understanding of the requested change before starting the implementation.

Likewise, if you encounter unexpected difficulties when addressing a comment, prefer to use respond_comment() to outline the issue and options to proceed, instead of blindly plowing through.

Do not use respond_comment() to send trivial replies like "ok", "done", "fixed the issue".

name	local-reviewing
description	Opens a browser-based diff viewer where the USER personally reviews and approves CLAUDE's code changes before committing or pushing. Use this skill when the user wants to inspect Claude's work themselves — e.g. "let me review your changes", "open a review session", "put your changes up for review", "I want to approve before we push". Do NOT use this skill when the user asks Claude to review THEIR code or give feedback on their changes — that's a normal code review task, not a local review session.
allowed-tools	mcp__local-review__startreview

The high-level workflow looks like this:

Start a review by calling startreview() and give the returned URL to the user
Call await_comments(), and wait for a return value 2a) ... if receiving a comment, address it: - If you need to ask a question or report an issue, call respond_comment() with a message - Once the work is done, call resolve_comment() to mark it as resolved Go to (2) to await the next set of comments. 2b) ... if receiving REVIEW APPROVED, you are done and the review is approved.

Reference:

Here's a detailed reference of the MCP server's available tools:

Tool `startreview()`

Starts a code review session for a commit, range, or live changes.

Parameters:

commit: Review changes for a specific commit (e.g., 'abc123', 'HEAD', 'main')
range: Review changes for a commit range (e.g., 'main..feature', 'abc123..def456')
since: Review live changes since a commit (defaults to 'HEAD')
title: Optional title for the review (will be used as the page title)

Note: Exactly one of commit, range, or since must be specified.

Usage:

This is typically used in one of three ways:

Reviewing changes just before committing: startreview(since='HEAD')
Reviewing changes just after committing changes: startreview(since='HEAD~1')
Reviewing a PR before pushing it: startreview(range='HEAD~3..HEAD')

Tool `await_comments()`

Wait for review comments to be posted by the user.

Blocks until either:

A comment is available (returns dict with comment details)
The review is approved and no comments remain (returns "REVIEW APPROVED")

Tool `resolve_comment()`

Marks a comment as resolved. Use this after you have addressed a comment.

Parameters

comment_id: The ID of the comment to mark as resolved

Returns a status message indicating success or failure.

Tool `respond_comment()`

Sends a reply message on a comment thread. Use this to ask clarifying questions, report difficulties, or provide non-trivial context back to the reviewer.

Parameters

comment_id: The ID of the comment to reply to
message: The reply message to send

Returns a status message indicating success or failure.

Workflow

To reiterate, the high-level workflow looks like this.

Start a review by calling startreview() and give the returned URL to the user
Call await_comments(), and wait for a return value 2a) ... if receiving a comment, address it: - If you need to ask a question or report an issue, call respond_comment() with a message - Once the work is done, call resolve_comment() to mark it as resolved Go to (2) and await the next set of comments. 2b) ... if receiving REVIEW APPROVED, you are done and the review is approved.

The correct parameters for startreview() depend on the intent behind starting the review. The two most common cases are:

Reviewing local changes from the current agent session or PR. In this case, the since= form is used to give a complete picture of everything that's going on in the worktree.
Previewing a PR before opening it remotely. In this case the range= form is used to make it more obvious if important files are missing from the PR, or if unrelated changes were accidentally included.

If the parameters are not clear from the context, ask the user for clarification instead of guessing.

The starting point for both since and range reviews is usually the merge-base of the current branch.

Likewise, if you encounter unexpected difficulties when addressing a comment, prefer to use respond_comment() to outline the issue and options to proceed, instead of blindly plowing through.

Do not use respond_comment() to send trivial replies like "ok", "done", "fixed the issue".

local-reviewing

Reference:

Tool startreview()

Parameters:

Usage:

Tool await_comments()

Tool resolve_comment()

Parameters

Tool respond_comment()

Parameters

Workflow

Reference:

Tool startreview()

Parameters:

Usage:

Tool await_comments()

Tool resolve_comment()

Parameters

Tool respond_comment()

Parameters

Workflow

Tool `startreview()`

Tool `await_comments()`

Tool `resolve_comment()`

Tool `respond_comment()`

Tool `startreview()`

Tool `await_comments()`

Tool `resolve_comment()`

Tool `respond_comment()`