self-review

name	self-review
description	Dry-run a review pass over your own MR before asking a human reviewer — local checklist, no inline posting.
category	code-review
version	1
compatibility	devboy-tools >= 0.18
activation	["self review my MR","self review my PR","check my own PR","dry-run review before requesting"]
tools	["get_merge_request_diffs","get_merge_request_discussions"]

self-review

Run the review-mr checklist over your own MR before handing it to a reviewer. Findings stay local — the output is a plain-text report to the user, not comments on the MR. If anything serious turns up, you fix it and amend the branch first.

When to use

• You are about to mark an MR as "ready for review" and want a sanity pass.
• A previous review round finished; you want to confirm nothing new slipped in while addressing the comments.
• The user says "self-review my PR" or similar.

For reviewing someone else's MR, use review-mr — it posts inline comments and a summary. Self-review deliberately does not.

Procedure

1. Resolve the MR key

mr#<n> or pr#<n>. If the user did not give one, ask — do not guess from branch state.

2. Pull the diff

devboy tools call get_merge_request_diffs '{"key": "mr#374"}'

Read every changed file end-to-end. This is the only piece of ground truth you need — metadata (title, labels, target branch) is out of scope for self-review.

3. Pull existing discussions

devboy tools call get_merge_request_discussions '{"key": "mr#374", "limit": 100}'

Flag any thread that is clearly awaiting your response — for example, the latest comment was not authored by you, or it contains an explicit request for changes / clarification / follow-up.

If the provider exposes a reliable resolved field you may use it as a hint (GitLab does), but do not treat unresolved on its own as a universal blocking signal: on GitHub the provider has no reliable resolved-state signal in the REST data and resolved is always false, so a naive check would tag every thread and make self-review impossible on GitHub-hosted PRs.

Self-review is incomplete while a reviewer is still waiting on you — either reply to the thread (see fix-review-comments) or, if you are pushing back, have the reasoning ready so the reviewer is not left waiting.

4. Walk the checklist

Same list as review-mr, applied to your own code. For each item, record one of three outcomes: ok, minor (note it for the reviewer), fix-before-review (you are going to change the code right now).

• Type safety. Are new public APIs fully typed? Are unwrap() / expect() calls justified? Option / Result combinators rather than unwrapped access?
• Error handling. Do new error paths surface a useful message? Errors propagated rather than swallowed? New variants added to the right enum?
• Tests. Is every new behaviour covered? Edge cases (empty input, provider-unsupported, parse failure)? Assertions meaningful, not just "did not panic"?
• Docs. Public items documented? README / docs/ change if the public surface changes?
• i18n / user-facing copy. Any SKILL.md body, CLI output, error message — English only?
• Cross-platform. No POSIX-only paths, no bash-only scripting, no Unix-only tools?

5. If any item is fix-before-review — fix it

Make the change, then re-run the local checks appropriate for the stack touched. For devboy-tools:

cargo fmt --check
cargo clippy --all-targets -- -D warnings
cargo test -p <the-crate-you-touched>

Amend the branch — a new commit is fine, a squash is fine, whatever matches the project's convention. Push. Then go back to step 2 and re-read the diff. Self-review is iterative; do not short-circuit after a fix.

6. Produce the report

When the list has no fix-before-review items left, emit a compact text report to the user. Example shape:

Self-review — mr#374

Type safety:         ok
Error handling:      minor — new variant `Error::ProviderStale` is not in the README table yet
Tests:               ok
Docs:                minor — new --remote-config-url flag missing from README cheatsheet
i18n:                ok
Cross-platform:      ok

Open discussions:    0
Recommendation:      ready for review — two minor notes to call out in the MR description

The report goes to the user in the chat. Do not post it as an MR comment. Any item flagged minor is something you mention in the MR description or a cover letter to the reviewer, not a self-posted review.

Success criteria

• The report covers every checklist item with one of ok / minor / fix-before-review.
• No fix-before-review item is left unfixed by the time the report is written.
• Open discussions from previous rounds are counted and acknowledged.
• Nothing was posted to the MR as part of this skill.

Guardrails

• Never post inline comments on your own MR. Self-posted comments clutter the reviewer's view and muddy the signal about what a fresh pair of eyes actually flagged.
• Do not mark anything as resolved. Resolution belongs to whichever reviewer opened the thread.
• Do not approve, merge, or change MR state. This skill is strictly a dry-run.
• Do not expand scope during the fix pass. A self-review fix is still a fix — refactors belong in a separate MR.

Non-goals

• Replacing a human reviewer. Self-review catches the obvious; the human still needs to sign off.
• Running the full CI pipeline locally. Local checks (cargo fmt, cargo clippy, targeted cargo test) are enough for a self-review pass — CI is what the reviewer sees.