メニュー
Review a GitHub pull request in the Radius repository and produce concise, line-accurate feedback. Use when asked to review a PR, generate review feedback for a PR, or stage review comments for a PR.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
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。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/radius-project/radius --skill radius-code-reviewコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
Document application architectures with Mermaid diagrams. Use for: generating architecture overviews, component diagrams, sequence diagrams from code, explaining complex Go codebases, answering architecture questions, suggesting architectural improvements, producing entity-relationship diagrams, and distilling code into human-readable descriptions. For step-by-step contributor how-to docs, use radius-author-doc.
Create a NEW contributing doc (or expand a stub into the standard Purpose → Prerequisites → Steps → Verification → Troubleshooting format) for a contributor workflow that has none. Not for fixing an existing doc (use radius-update-doc) or for architecture docs (use radius-architecture-documenter).
Assess contributor docs: find which docs are MISSING or STALE across CONTRIBUTING.md, docs/contributing/, and docs/architecture/, or judge whether a code change needs doc updates. Produces prioritized findings and routes the work — it does not write docs itself. To create a doc use radius-author-doc; to fix a drifted doc use radius-update-doc.
SKILL.md を表示中
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | radius-code-review |
| description | Review a GitHub pull request in the Radius repository and produce concise, line-accurate feedback. Use when asked to review a PR, generate review feedback for a PR, or stage review comments for a PR. |
| argument-hint | Provide the PR number (and optionally repository owner/name) to review |
| user-invocable | true |
The procedure for reviewing a specific Radius pull request end to end. The rubric for what a good review contains — principles, quality and test criteria, PR-title and documentation-impact expectations, and output format — lives in code-review.instructions.md. This skill covers how to run the review: syncing to the latest PR head, resolving accurate line numbers, and delivering or staging comments. Keep working notes in the session and deliver the review through chat or the active PR review surface.
Do not use this skill for:
radius-contributing-docs-updater)code-review agent)radius-project/radius)Never trust the current worktree, cached diffs, or a prior review pass.
gh pr view <pr-number> --json title,body,headRefName,headRefOid,baseRefName,baseRefOid,commits,files,comments,reviews to collect PR metadata, changed files, prior discussion, and the head SHA.git fetch, then compare the local checkout to the remote head. Account for rebases and force-pushes: note when the head SHA, commit list, changed-file set, or merge base differs from anything you observed before.Apply the rubric in code-review.instructions.md and the matching language files in .github/instructions/ (Go, Shell, Make, Docker, GitHub Workflows, Bicep, Markdown). Read complete functions or surrounding call sites when a hunk alone cannot prove or disprove a finding.
Prioritize high-confidence, actionable issues:
Skip pure preference, generic praise, and style already handled by automation.
Wrong line numbers are the most common defect in generated reviews. For every inline comment:
git diff --unified=0 <merge-base>...<head> plus a unique snippet search in the changed hunk.RIGHT side of the diff and inside a changed hunk. If the issue concerns nearby unchanged code, attach to the closest changed line and say so in the comment body.Follow the documentation-impact section of the rubric. Use the radius-contributing-docs-updater skill; when the drift is directly caused by the PR, raise it as a normal finding with the specific doc path and required change.
Report one overall outcome: No findings, Comments (advisory), or Request changes (at least one blocking issue). Approve only when the user explicitly asks and you have authority in the active review surface.
/radius-code-review Review PR #1234/radius-code-review Review radius-project/radius#5678/radius-code-review Draft review comments for the active PR