Menu
Review a pull request using Lean waste categories and structured severity ratings
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Basé sur la classification professionnelle SOC
| name | lean-pr-review |
| description | Review a pull request using Lean waste categories and structured severity ratings |
| compatibility | >=1.4 |
Skill metadata: version "1.1"; license MIT; tags [review, pull-request, lean, kaizen, code-review]; compatibility ">=1.4"; recommended tools [codebase, githubRepo].
Perform a structured pull request review using §5 Review Mode conventions and §6 waste categories.
Get the diff — Read PR diff or changed files. Locally: git diff main...HEAD.
Scan each changed file — Read full files (not just hunks) for context.
Classify each finding — [severity] | [file:line] | [waste category] | [description]
Severity: critical (blocks merge), major (fix before merge), minor (nice to fix), advisory (informational).
Waste categories (§6) — full list W1–W16; most common in PR review:
| Code | Name | Typical PR signal |
|---|---|---|
| W1 | Overproduction | Dead code, unused exports, features not yet needed |
| W2 | Waiting | Blocking sync calls, missing timeouts |
| W3 | Transport | Unnecessary data copying, prop drilling 3+ levels |
| W4 | Over-processing | Abstraction for its own sake, premature generalisation |
| W5 | Inventory | Large WIP; changes that could be split into smaller PRs |
| W6 | Motion | Logic scattered across many files without justification |
| W7 | Defects | Bugs, type errors, missing error handling, test failures |
| W8 | Unused talent | Missing tests, missing automation, repetitive manual patterns |
| W11 | Hallucination rework | Phantom API usage, methods that don't exist, incorrect assumptions |
| W14 | Model-task mismatch | Overly complex solution to a trivial problem |
For W9–W10, W12–W13, W15–W16 definitions, see §6 of .github/copilot-instructions.md.
Check test coverage — New/changed behaviour must have tests. Flag untested paths as major | W7.
Check baselines — §2 baselines: file LOC limits, dependency budget, zero type errors.
Produce the report — Format as:
## PR Review — <PR title or branch name>
### Summary
<1–2 sentence overview of the changes and their quality>
### Findings (<N> total: <critical> critical, <major> major, <minor> minor, <advisory> advisory)
#### Critical
- [critical] | [file:line] | [W7] | <description>
#### Major
- [major] | [file:line] | [W4] | <description>
#### Minor
- [minor] | [file:line] | [W1] | <description>
#### Advisory
- [advisory] | [file:line] | [W8] | <description>
### Verdict
<APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / COMMENT>
Wait — Do not apply fixes. Present the report and wait for the user to decide what to address.
Health check procedures D1–D14 for the Audit agent — structural validation, attention budget, version checks, workspace integrity, and static audit
Configure and manage Model Context Protocol servers for external tool access
Review a UI for accessibility — WCAG 2.1 AA compliance, semantic HTML, ARIA usage, keyboard navigation, focus management, colour contrast, and screen reader compatibility
Design or review a REST or GraphQL API — resource modeling, versioning strategy, error contract, OpenAPI/schema-first workflow, and security baseline
Generate a CHANGELOG.md entry from staged changes, a commit range, or a PR diff — following Keep a Changelog format with conventional commit classification
Set up and audit environment variable management — create .env.example, add startup validation, separate secrets from config, and document every variable