Review code changes by analyzing git diffs, leaving inline comments on PRs, and performing thorough pre-push review. Works with gh CLI or falls back to git + GitHub REST API via curl.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Review code changes by analyzing git diffs, leaving inline comments on PRs, and performing thorough pre-push review. Works with gh CLI or falls back to git + GitHub REST API via curl.
Perform code reviews on local changes before pushing, or review open PRs on GitHub. Most of this skill uses plain git — the gh/curl split only matters for PR-level interactions.
This is pure git — works everywhere, no API needed.
Get the Diff
# Staged changes (what would be committed)
git diff --staged
# All changes vs main (what a PR would contain)
git diff main...HEAD
# File names only
git diff main...HEAD --name-only
# Stat summary (insertions/deletions per file)
git diff main...HEAD --stat
When reviewing local changes, present findings in this structure:
## Code Review Summary
### Critical
- **src/auth.py:45** — SQL injection: user input passed directly to query.
Suggestion: Use parameterized queries.
### Warnings
- **src/models/user.py:23** — Password stored in plaintext. Use bcrypt or argon2.
- **src/api/routes.py:112** — No rate limiting on login endpoint.
### Suggestions
- **src/utils/helpers.py:8** — Duplicates logic in `src/core/utils.py:34`. Consolidate.
- **tests/test_auth.py** — Missing edge case: expired token test.
### Looks Good
- Clean separation of concerns in the middleware layer
- Good test coverage for the happy path
# Fetch the PR branch and check it out
git fetch origin pull/123/head:pr-123
git checkout pr-123
# Now you can use read_file, search_files, run tests, etc.# View diff against the base branch
git diff main...pr-123
With gh (shortcut):
gh pr checkout 123
Leave Comments on a PR
General PR comment — with gh:
gh pr comment 123 --body "Overall looks good, a few suggestions below."
General PR comment — with curl:
curl -s -X POST \
-H "Authorization: token $GITHUB_TOKEN" \
https://api.github.com/repos/$OWNER/$REPO/issues/$PR_NUMBER/comments \
-d '{"body": "Overall looks good, a few suggestions below."}'
Leave Inline Review Comments
Single inline comment — with gh (via API):
HEAD_SHA=$(gh pr view 123 --json headRefOid --jq '.headRefOid')
gh api repos/$OWNER/$REPO/pulls/123/comments \
--method POST \
-f body="This could be simplified with a list comprehension." \
-f path="src/auth/login.py" \
-f commit_id="$HEAD_SHA" \
-f line=45 \
-f side="RIGHT"
Single inline comment — with curl:
# Get the head commit SHA
HEAD_SHA=$(curl -s \
-H "Authorization: token $GITHUB_TOKEN" \
https://api.github.com/repos/$OWNER/$REPO/pulls/$PR_NUMBER \
| python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['head']['sha'])")
curl -s -X POST \
-H "Authorization: token $GITHUB_TOKEN" \
https://api.github.com/repos/$OWNER/$REPO/pulls/$PR_NUMBER/comments \
-d "{
\"body\": \"This could be simplified with a list comprehension.\",
\"path\": \"src/auth/login.py\",
\"commit_id\": \"$HEAD_SHA\",
\"line\": 45,
\"side\": \"RIGHT\"
}"
Submit a Formal Review (Approve / Request Changes)
# Full diff against the base branch
git diff main...HEAD
# Or file-by-file for large PRs
git diff main...HEAD --name-only
# Then for each file:
git diff main...HEAD -- path/to/file.py
For each changed file, use read_file to see full context around the changes — diffs alone can miss issues visible only with surrounding code.
Step 5: Run automated checks locally (if applicable)
# Run tests if there's a test suite
python -m pytest 2>&1 | tail -20
# or: npm test, cargo test, go test ./..., etc.# Run linter if configured
ruff check . 2>&1 | head -30
# or: eslint, clippy, etc.
Step 6: Apply the review checklist (Section 3)
Go through each category: Correctness, Security, Code Quality, Testing, Performance, Documentation.
Step 7: Post the review to GitHub
Collect your findings and submit them as a formal review with inline comments.
With gh:
# If no issues — approve
gh pr review $PR_NUMBER --approve --body "Reviewed by Gauss Agent. Code looks clean — good test coverage, no security concerns."# If issues found — request changes with inline comments
gh pr review $PR_NUMBER --request-changes --body "Found a few issues — see inline comments."
With curl — atomic review with multiple inline comments:
HEAD_SHA=$(curl -s -H "Authorization: token $GITHUB_TOKEN" \
https://api.github.com/repos/$GH_OWNER/$GH_REPO/pulls/$PR_NUMBER \
| python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['head']['sha'])")
# Build the review JSON — event is APPROVE, REQUEST_CHANGES, or COMMENT
curl -s -X POST \
-H "Authorization: token $GITHUB_TOKEN" \
https://api.github.com/repos/$GH_OWNER/$GH_REPO/pulls/$PR_NUMBER/reviews \
-d "{
\"commit_id\": \"$HEAD_SHA\",
\"event\": \"REQUEST_CHANGES\",
\"body\": \"## Gauss Agent Review\n\nFound 2 issues, 1 suggestion. See inline comments.\",
\"comments\": [
{\"path\": \"src/auth.py\", \"line\": 45, \"body\": \"🔴 **Critical:** User input passed directly to SQL query — use parameterized queries.\"},
{\"path\": \"src/models.py\", \"line\": 23, \"body\": \"⚠️ **Warning:** Password stored without hashing.\"},
{\"path\": \"src/utils.py\", \"line\": 8, \"body\": \"💡 **Suggestion:** This duplicates logic in core/utils.py:34.\"}
]
}"
Step 8: Also post a summary comment
In addition to inline comments, leave a top-level summary so the PR author gets the full picture at a glance. Use the review output format from references/review-output-template.md.