| name | merge-ready |
| description | Take a branch from "code exists (or is about to)" to "ready for Ben's final review" — multi-axis subagent review with verified findings, fixes, ci:check, checkpoint commits, and an updated PR. Use whenever the user says a feature/fix/branch should be "merge ready", asks to get changes ready for review, or appends this to a build request ("build X and make it merge-ready"). |
Merge ready
Drive the current work to the point where the only remaining step is Ben's own review and merge. The deliverable is a pushed branch with a clean pnpm ci:check, checkpoint commits along the way, and an open PR with a high-level description plus review instructions.
Never merge the PR. Ben always reviews last.
0. Figure out the starting point
This skill composes with feature work — it is not only a review pass:
- Invoked alongside a build request ("build X, make it merge-ready"): implement the feature/fix first, committing as you go, then continue below. The review phases cover all changes on the branch vs
origin/main, not just the last edit.
- Invoked on existing work ("make this branch merge-ready"): start directly at step 1. The scope is
git diff origin/main...HEAD plus anything uncommitted.
1. Sync with main
git fetch origin main. If the branch is behind, merge origin/main in and resolve conflicts (favor main's version for code this branch didn't intentionally change).- Checkpoint: commit the merge before starting review, so conflict resolution is auditable separately from review fixes.
2. Multi-axis subagent review
Spawn independent review subagents in parallel, one per axis, each given the branch diff scope (git diff origin/main...HEAD) and repo access:
- Unnecessary complexity — thin wrappers, needless indirection, single-use abstractions, defensive guards for impossible states, dead config. This codebase deliberately stays simple.
- Security — authz on new endpoints (org/project scoping), SSRF, injection, secrets handling, anything user-input-shaped reaching D1/R2/external APIs.
- Billing & metering — ways a user could trigger DataForSEO/provider spend without being metered, charged-but-failed paths, retry/loop amplification, endpoints with unexpectedly high per-call user cost. Credits are billed via Autumn; uncounted spend is a revenue leak.
- Library & project idioms — TanStack (Router/Query/Start) used idiomatically; patterns match how the rest of the codebase already does it (Result-pattern error handling at provider seams, db/schema conventions, existing component patterns). Flag novel patterns where an established one exists.
- Vibe-coded cruft — leftover scaffolding, stale comments narrating the edit history, console.logs, TODO-without-owner, copy-pasted near-duplicates, files/exports nothing uses.
Each reviewer returns findings with file:line, severity (blocker / should-fix / nitpick), and a one-line rationale. Tell reviewers explicitly: this is an early-stage product — do not chase theoretical edge cases; mark anything debatable as nitpick.
3. Verify findings — never blindly accept
For each blocker and should-fix finding, spawn verification subagents (in parallel) that adversarially check the finding against the actual code and verdict APPLY / APPLY-MODIFIED / REJECT with reasoning. Drop rejected findings. Nitpicks don't need verification — they're reported, not necessarily fixed.
4. Fix, check, loop
- Apply verified
blocker/should-fix fixes. Apply nitpicks only when trivial and clearly right; otherwise list them in the PR for Ben to judge.
- Checkpoint: commit fixes in logical groups (e.g. one commit per axis or per concern) so the fix history is reviewable on its own.
- Run
pnpm ci:check (prettier, knip, tsc, oxlint). Fix failures and re-run until clean. If a fix was substantial (not formatting/lint), run a quick re-review of just that change.
- Loop until ci:check passes and no verified findings remain unaddressed.
5. Push and open/update the PR
- Push the branch. Open a PR against
main if one doesn't exist; otherwise update the existing PR's description.
- PR description requirements:
- High-level — what changed and why, written for a human skimming. No file paths, no per-file changelog.
- How to review — a short ordered guide: what to look at first, what the risky/judgment-call areas are, what was deliberately left out of scope.
- Review notes — unfixed nitpicks and any REJECT verdicts worth a second opinion, clearly labeled as such.
- Report back to Ben: PR link, one-paragraph summary, and anything that still needs his judgment. Do not merge.
