// Resolve Slang clarity review candidates marked as needing a judgment call. Use after consolidation and scope filtering, before posting, to perform focused follow-up analysis and decide whether uncertain candidates should be kept, revised, or dropped.
Review Slang changes for high-level clarity. Use whenever reviewing PRs or diffs for code quality or correctness. Produces candidate review comments in a markdown file.
Run the full Slang clarity review workflow: generate high-level and fine-grained candidates, consolidate overlap, filter for PR-author scope, and optionally post one GitHub PR review. Use when asked to perform an end-to-end clarity-focused review.
Merge Slang clarity review candidate files and resolve overlapping, duplicate, or superseded comments. Use after high-level and fine-grained clarity review passes and before scope filtering or GitHub posting. Produces or updates one canonical candidate markdown file.
Review Slang changes for fine-grained clarity. Use whenever reviewing PRs or diffs for code quality or correctness. Produces candidate review comments in a markdown file.
Post filtered Slang clarity review candidates as one proper GitHub PR review. Use after candidate consolidation and scope filtering. Uses the bundled stdlib Python script to validate candidate formatting, map comments to PR diff lines, and submit a GitHub review through gh.
Filter candidate review comments in place for PR-author ownership. Use after slang-review-consolidate-candidates, slang-review-clarity, or slang-review-fine-grained-clarity to conservatively keep only comments about code the PR author is justifiably responsible for addressing. Updates candidate status metadata in the markdown file.
| name | slang-review-resolve-judgment-calls |
| description | Resolve Slang clarity review candidates marked as needing a judgment call. Use after consolidation and scope filtering, before posting, to perform focused follow-up analysis and decide whether uncertain candidates should be kept, revised, or dropped. |
| argument-hint | <candidate-markdown> <pr-number-or-diff-path> |
| allowed-tools | ["Bash","Read","Grep","Glob","Write","Edit"] |
Review candidates marked Status: Needs judgment call or with Overlap decision: Needs judgment call. The goal is to resolve uncertainty through focused analysis, not to wait for a
human reviewer.
Do not post comments. Update the canonical candidate markdown file in place.
Read:
tmp/pr-diff.patch and tmp/pr-files.txt, or the equivalent PR diff and file list.For each judgment-call candidate, spend focused effort to make a decision:
Status: Keep when the concern is credible, in scope, and useful to post.Status: Revise when the concern is credible but the proposed comment needs a narrower
location, clearer wording, or a different request.Status: Drop when the concern is unsupported, duplicate, superseded, out of scope, or too
speculative after follow-up analysis.Status: Needs judgment call only when focused analysis still cannot resolve the question.Update or add:
- Judgment decision: Keep | Revise | Drop | Needs judgment call
- Judgment rationale: <one or two sentences describing the decisive evidence or remaining uncertainty>
If keeping, revising, or leaving a candidate as Needs judgment call, make sure it still has
postable metadata:
- Scope decision: Direct | Contextual
- Scope rationale: <one sentence>
- Overlap decision: Keep
- Overlap rationale: <one sentence>
Needs judgment call.## Dropped section when practical, preserving enough
rationale for auditability.