| name | self-review |
| description | Use before opening a PR, or whenever asked to self-review a diffusers contribution. Applies the same rubric as the `@claude` CI (checks the diff against references/review-rules.md, traces call paths for dead code). Reports findings grouped by severity, flagging what to fix before submitting (blocking issues + dead code) vs what to leave for the actual review. Report-only — does not edit files.
|
Self-review
Runs the same rubric as the @claude CI reviewer, so you catch issues before a
maintainer does — but over your whole PR diff. (The CI scopes itself to
src/diffusers/, tests/, and .ai/; for your own PR, also review your docs
and scripts.) You're already on the branch with the conventions loaded, so: get
the
diff → review it against the rubric → report → iterate with the contributor
until it's ready, then remind them to share the final notes on the PR.
1. Get the diff
git diff main...HEAD
If the branch trails main and the diff looks polluted with unrelated merged
files, scope to your own commits: git log main..HEAD --oneline, then
git show <commit>.
2. Read the rubric
references/review-rules.md is the canonical rubric (the CI pins it from main) — read
it and review against it; don't rely on a remembered copy. For the areas you
touched, also read references/code_style.md, references/models.md, references/pipelines.md,
references/modular.md, references/testing.md, or references/pitfalls.md.
3. Report
- Blocking issues — numbered. Each: title → explanation →
file.py:line →
impact. Cite the rule, e.g. Per references/models.md: "…only keep the inference path."
- Non-blocking issues — same format, lower severity.
- Dead code (advisory) — a table:
path:line · Likely-dead / Used · reason.
- Summary — short synthesis and a verdict (READY / NEEDS CHANGES),
spelling out:
- Fix before submitting — all blocking issues, and remove the flagged dead code.
- Leave for the actual review — non-blocking issues that aren't obviously
correct; raise these with the reviewer rather than guessing at them now.
Report only — do not edit files. Be concrete, cite the rule, review the whole
diff, and don't invent issues or flag pure style.
4. Iterate until ready, then share
Expect several rounds: the contributor addresses findings, you review again.
Keep working with them to fix as much as possible until the verdict is
READY — the Leave for the actual review items are the only ones that
should reach the reviewer unresolved. End the final round's report by
reminding the contributor to share it on the PR (description or a comment) —
it saves the reviewer a few rounds of back-and-forth. Never commit the notes as
part of the diff.
