name: infra-kit.workflow.review
description: Make infra PRs reviewable: PR readiness checklist, traceability to ticket, and how to respond to review feedback.
Review Loop (PR Readiness + Feedback)
Use this skill when you are preparing to open a pull request, requesting review, or responding to review feedback for infra changes (Terraform/Helm/GitHub Actions/platform config).
Outcomes
- Ensure the PR tells reviewers: what changed, why, risk, rollout/rollback, and verification evidence
- Reduce back-and-forth by front-loading required context
- Provide a consistent process for responding to feedback without losing traceability to the ticket
Where This Fits In The Flow
- Use after
infra-kit.workflow.verify and before merge.
- Pair with
infra-kit.workflow.audit for the cross-cutting safety gate.
Output Rules
- Write PR-ready summary content into the work item:
docs/infras-kit/work-items/<id>-<slug>/confluence.md (can double as PR body)
- and ensure
implementation-notes.md contains verification evidence.
PR Readiness Checklist
Confirm:
- The PR links to the ticket and matches the scope in
ticket.md.
- Acceptance criteria are testable and mapped to:
- tasks (
tasks.md)
- verification evidence (
implementation-notes.md or verification.md)
- The PR description includes:
- what changed and why
- impact and risk
- rollout steps
- rollback steps and trigger
- verification commands run + key results
- Any required manual steps (GitHub UI settings, approvals, secrets) are called out explicitly.
Responding To Review Feedback
- Categorize feedback:
- correctness/safety blockers
- clarity/docs requests
- style/nits
- For blockers, prioritize the smallest safe change and re-run verification.
- Update artifacts when needed:
- if scope changes, update
ticket.md / spec.md
- if the plan changes, update
plan.md and reflect it in tasks.md
- Record what changed in
implementation-notes.md and add new evidence.
- When you disagree, propose an alternative with explicit trade-offs and a way to verify.
Guardrails
- Do not merge with unresolved
[NEEDS CLARIFICATION: ...] unless explicitly accepted as a spike with [ASSUMPTION: ...].
- Do not answer reviewers with speculation; either cite evidence or propose a test.