メニュー
Review MicroPython code changes using domain-focused agents. Invoke when user mentions reviewing code, wants feedback on MicroPython PRs/commits/diffs, or asks for code review.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Use this skill for general MicroPython device interaction via mpremote, including connecting, running code, checking device state, and managing the device. Triggers on "connect to micropython", "run code on device", "check device state", "mpremote", "micropython device", "repl", "device version", "device reset".
Use this skill when copying files to or from a MicroPython device using mpremote. Covers file copy syntax, directory operations, and best practices for device filesystem management. Triggers on "copy file to device", "upload to device", "download from device", "mpremote fs", "device filesystem", "copy firmware files".
Use this skill when maintaining a persistent interactive connection to a MicroPython device for sending commands and capturing output. This is the PREFERRED method for device interaction when multiple commands need to be sent, when monitoring device output over time, or when the device runs an asyncio event loop with aiorepl. Triggers on "send commands to device", "monitor device output", "interactive session", "persistent connection", "stress test device", "capture serial output".
This skill MUST be used when drafting GitHub Pull Request or GitLab Merge Request titles and descriptions. This includes when the user asks to "create a PR", "open a PR", "raise a MR", "write a PR description", "draft a merge request", "submit a PR", "make a merge request", or when an agent workflow reaches a PR/MR creation step. This skill should also be used when reviewing or rewriting an existing PR/MR description.
Run the MicroPython CI pipeline locally using Docker. This skill should be used when working in a MicroPython repository and the user wants to run CI checks, build firmware, or test changes locally before pushing. Triggers on requests like "run CI", "test my changes", "build stm32", "run all checks", "run the linters", or any mention of local CI testing for MicroPython.
Systematic workflow for maintaining a backlog of open MicroPython PRs. Use when the user asks about PR maintenance, PR backlog processing, rebasing PRs, working through open PRs, or updating stale PRs. Handles reconnaissance, reviewer feedback discussion, rebase in worktrees via subprocess, local CI validation, and force-push.
| name | mpy-review |
| description | Review MicroPython code changes using domain-focused agents. Invoke when user mentions reviewing code, wants feedback on MicroPython PRs/commits/diffs, or asks for code review. |
Version: 2.0.0
Review MicroPython code changes with parallel domain-focused agents: $ARGUMENTS
Your goal is to perform a multi-dimensional review of MicroPython code changes by launching four parallel review agents (Correctness & Safety, Resource Constraints, API & Portability, Conventions & Completeness), validating their findings to filter noise, then presenting consolidated results.
Check for MicroPython markers:
test -f py/mpconfig.h || test -f py/runtime.h || test -f mpy-cross/main.c
If none found:
This does not appear to be a MicroPython repository.
/mpy-review requires a MicroPython checkout.
Exit gracefully.
Determine what to review from $ARGUMENTS or conversation context:
| User says | Diff command |
|---|---|
| "review my current branch" / "review this branch" | git diff main (or detected base) |
| "review commit abc123" | git show abc123 |
| "review PR 12345" | gh pr diff 12345 |
| "review changes to py/gc.c" | git diff main -- py/gc.c |
| "review staged changes" | git diff --cached |
| "review uncommitted changes" | git diff HEAD |
If reviewing a branch, detect the base branch:
git rev-parse --abbrev-ref @{upstream} 2>/dev/nullgit symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||'main if it exists, then masterREVIEW_TS=$(date +%Y%m%d_%H%M%S)
Gather context:
# Changed files with stats
git diff --stat <BASE>..HEAD
# File list
git diff --name-only <BASE>..HEAD
# Commit log (if reviewing a branch)
git log --oneline <BASE>..HEAD
# Line change summary
git diff --shortstat <BASE>..HEAD
# Save full diff to temp file
git diff <BASE>..HEAD > /tmp/mpy_review_diff_${REVIEW_TS}.patch
For PR reviews, also fetch metadata:
gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --json title,body,commits
MicroPython Review Setup
========================
Branch: <current-branch>
Base: <BASE>
Commits: <N>
Files: <N> changed
Lines: +<additions> / -<deletions>
Changed Files:
<file list with stats>
Launching 4 review agents...
PROMPT_DIR = ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/prompts
RULES_DIR = ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/rules
Verify all required prompt files exist:
${PROMPT_DIR}/shared-context.md${PROMPT_DIR}/correctness-safety.md${PROMPT_DIR}/resource-constraints.md${PROMPT_DIR}/api-portability.md${PROMPT_DIR}/conventions-completeness.mdIf any are missing, report an error and stop.
Launch ALL four agents in a SINGLE message using the Agent tool with
model='opus'.
Each agent's prompt has three parts:
Part 1 -- Runtime Context (inline):
MICROPYTHON REVIEW CONTEXT
===========================
Base Branch: <BASE>
Changed Files:
<output of git diff --name-only>
Commit History:
<output of git log --oneline BASE..HEAD>
PR Title: <title if available>
PR Body: <body if available>
Full Diff: Read /tmp/mpy_review_diff_<REVIEW_TS>.patch
Part 2 -- File Read Directives:
Read these files before reviewing:
1. <PROMPT_DIR>/shared-context.md (review stance, style guide, output format)
2. <PROMPT_DIR>/<dimension>.md (your specific review criteria)
3. <RULES_DIR>/development-patterns.md (MicroPython development patterns)
Then read CODECONVENTIONS.md at the repo root.
Part 3 -- Execution Instruction:
Apply the review stance, style guide, and dimension-specific criteria to
the diff. Explore the existing codebase around changed files before
reviewing. Return findings as a JSON array following the schema in
shared-context.md. End with a 2-3 sentence summary.
The four agents and their dimension files:
correctness-safety.mdresource-constraints.mdapi-portability.mdconventions-completeness.mdReview Agents Launched
======================
Agent 1: Correctness & Safety -- launched
Agent 2: Resource Constraints -- launched
Agent 3: API & Portability -- launched
Agent 4: Conventions & Complete -- launched
Waiting for results from 4 agents...
After all 4 agents return, parse JSON findings from each. If an agent returned malformed output, note it and continue with findings from successful agents.
Concatenate all findings into a single list. Each finding should already have
a dimension field from the agent (set by shared-context.md). If missing, tag
based on which agent produced it.
Launch a SINGLE validation agent (separate Agent call to preserve orchestrator
context) with model='opus'.
The validation agent prompt:
Part 1 -- All Raw Findings:
RAW FINDINGS FROM REVIEW AGENTS
================================
<All findings as JSON array>
Part 2 -- Branch Context:
REVIEW CONTEXT
==============
Base Branch: <BASE>
Changed Files:
<file list>
Full Diff: Read /tmp/mpy_review_diff_<REVIEW_TS>.patch
Part 3 -- File Read Directives:
Read these files:
1. <PROMPT_DIR>/finding-validation.md (validation criteria)
2. <PROMPT_DIR>/shared-context.md (review stance)
3. <RULES_DIR>/development-patterns.md (project patterns)
Evaluate every finding per the validation criteria. Read source files to
verify convention findings. Follow the output format in finding-validation.md.
Parse the validation output. For each finding:
[QUESTIONABLE] tag and validation noteFinding Validation
==================
Raw findings received: <N>
Kept: <N>
Questionable: <N> (included with flag)
Invalid (removed): <N>
Generating report...
Write to /tmp/MPY_REVIEW_<REVIEW_TS>.md:
# MicroPython Review: <branch or PR description>
**Base:** <BASE> | **Commits:** <N> | **Files Changed:** <N> | **Lines:** +<X> / -<Y>
**Date:** <YYYY-MM-DD>
## Summary
<2-3 sentence assessment. State merge readiness.>
## Findings
### Correctness & Safety
<Findings from Agent 1>
### Resource Constraints
<Findings from Agent 2>
### API & Portability
<Findings from Agent 3>
### Conventions & Completeness
<Findings from Agent 4>
## Action Items
- [ ] [blocking] Description -- file:line -- commit: <hash>
- [ ] [suggestion] Description -- file:line -- commit: <hash>
- [ ] [nitpick] Description -- file:line -- commit: <hash>
## Statistics
| Dimension | Blocking | Suggestion | Nitpick |
|-----------|----------|------------|---------|
| Correctness & Safety | <N> | <N> | <N> |
| Resource Constraints | <N> | <N> | <N> |
| API & Portability | <N> | <N> | <N> |
| Conventions & Completeness | <N> | <N> | <N> |
| **Total** | **<N>** | **<N>** | **<N>** |
====================================================
MICROPYTHON REVIEW COMPLETE
====================================================
Report: /tmp/MPY_REVIEW_<REVIEW_TS>.md
Branch: <current-branch>
Base: <BASE>
Commits: <N> | Files: <N> | Lines: +<X> / -<Y>
Validation:
Raw findings: <N>
Kept: <N>
Questionable: <N>
Removed: <N>
Issues Found:
Blocking: <N>
Suggestion: <N>
Nitpick: <N>
All Findings:
1. [blocking] <title> -- <file:line> -- <commit>
2. [suggestion] <title> -- <file:line> -- <commit>
3. [suggestion] [QUESTIONABLE] <title> -- <file:line>
...
Merge Readiness: <READY | READY WITH WARNINGS | NOT READY>
Next Steps:
1. Triage -- walk through each finding
2. Plan all -- plan fixes for all findings
3. Post to PR -- post review to GitHub (PR reviews only)
====================================================
Merge Readiness:
READY -- no blocking findingsREADY WITH WARNINGS -- blocking findings are all QUESTIONABLENOT READY -- confirmed blocking findingsUse AskUserQuestion with options:
Present each finding in severity order (blocking first). For each:
Finding <N>/<total>: [SEVERITY] <title>
File: <file:line>
Commit: <hash>
Detail: <description>
Recommendation: <recommendation>
Ask user via AskUserQuestion: Include / Skip / Defer
After all findings triaged, show summary and proceed to plan generation if any findings were included.
Include all KEEP + QUESTIONABLE findings. Proceed to plan generation.
Available when reviewing a PR. Assemble findings into the input format expected by post-review.py:
{
"summary": "<review summary>",
"findings": [<validated findings with status field>]
}
Write to temp file and call:
python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/post-review.py \
--repo <owner/name> --pr <number> \
--findings /tmp/mpy_review_findings_<REVIEW_TS>.json \
--diff /tmp/mpy_review_diff_<REVIEW_TS>.patch
Report the result. If the script returns errors (line out of range, auth failure), show them and offer to retry with corrections.
Format included findings as numbered executable steps:
Step N: [SEVERITY] <title>
File: <file:line>
Fixup: <hash> ("<commit message>")
Change: <what to edit>
Why: <1 sentence>
Command: git commit --fixup=<hash>
QUESTIONABLE findings prefixed with [QUESTIONABLE] and include the
validator's note.
Final step:
Step N (final): Fold fixup commits
Command: git rebase --autosquash <BASE>
Write plan to /tmp/MPY_REVIEW_PLAN_<REVIEW_TS>.md, then call
EnterPlanMode.
model='opus' for all agentsThis does not appear to be a MicroPython repository.
/mpy-review requires py/mpconfig.h, py/runtime.h, or mpy-cross/main.c.
No changes found to review.
Could not locate review prompt files.
Expected at: <PROMPT_DIR>/
Missing: <list>
The mpy-rules plugin may need reinstalling.
<N>/4 review agents completed successfully.
Agent <name> failed: <reason>
Proceeding with available findings.