메뉴
Activate when reviewing branches, commits, or pull requests using the emoji-driven review protocol.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
| name | code-review |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| description | Activate when reviewing branches, commits, or pull requests using the emoji-driven review protocol. |
| triggers | ["review","pr","pull-request","code-review","merge","diff"] |
A systematic review protocol for branches, commits, or pull requests. Every comment is prefixed with an emoji to signal intent and severity, producing structured, actionable feedback.
| Emoji | Tag | Intent | Action Required? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐛 | bug | Potential bug or incorrect behavior. Explain the failure scenario and suggest a fix. | Yes — Must fix |
| 🔧 | change | Concrete change request. A concern or improvement that should be addressed before merging. | Yes — Should fix |
| ♻️ | refactor | Refactoring suggestion. Include pseudo-code or a brief outline of the proposed simplification. | Yes — Consider |
| ❓ | question | A question that needs an answer to continue the review. Provide enough context for a clear response. | Yes — Reply needed |
| 💭 | thought | Thinking out loud. Sharing an alternative approach or walking through the code to verify understanding. | No |
| 🌱 | seed | Planting a seed. An observation with larger implications worth exploring in a follow-up task. | No |
| 👍 | praise | Highlight something well done. Positive reinforcement for good patterns, clean abstractions, or clever solutions. | No |
| ⛏ | nit | Nitpick. Minor style or formatting preference. Not worth blocking a merge. | No |
| 📌 | out-of-scope | A concern that falls outside the current change. Should be tracked as a separate issue or task. | No — Track separately |
Rule: Only 🐛 and 🔧 comments block a merge. All other emojis are informational or advisory.
Before writing any comment, perform a recursive assessment:
Organize the review output in this order:
A 2-3 sentence overview of the change: what it does, whether it achieves its stated goal, and the overall quality impression.
Present findings in descending severity order:
Each finding must include:
file_path:line_number (or line range).Close the review with one of:
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
| ✅ Approve | No blocking issues. Ready to merge. |
| 🔄 Request Changes | Has 🐛 or 🔧 findings that must be resolved. |
| 💬 Comment | Has ❓ questions that need answers before a decision. |
Cross-reference every diff against these checks:
any, mixed, or loose types → 🔧.Single finding:
🐛
src/checkout/payment.ts:42— This method doesn't handle the case wheregateway.charge()throws. The promise rejection will propagate unhandled. Suggestion: Wrap in try/catch and return aPaymentResult.failed(error).
recursive-exploration (tracing methodology), typescript-standard or php-standard (quality gates)refactor (for implementing suggested refactors)References: Emoji Code (dev.to), Code Review Emoji Guide (GitHub)
Activate when an Engineering Manager needs to shape a rough initiative into a clear, scoped, outcome-oriented brief before execution.
Activate when managing conversation history in long sessions, choosing compression strategies, or preserving critical information during context truncation.
Activate when designing agent systems, debugging unexpected agent behavior, or optimizing context usage and attention budgets.
Activate when hitting context limits, experiencing quality degradation in long sessions, or needing to extend effective context capacity.
Activate when generating in-code comments or system documentation using the Diátaxis framework.
Activate when testing agent systems, measuring output quality, or designing evaluation frameworks for AI-assisted workflows.