branch-review

name	Branch: Review
description	{{ 𝛀𝛀𝛀 }} Assess branch readiness for PR submission
when_to_use	Before opening a PR, when you want a readiness verdict on commit quality, diff size, and branch naming grounded in exact git facts rather than a skim.
model	opus
disable-model-invocation	true
allowed-tools	["Read","Glob","Grep","Bash(git:*)","Bash(~/.claude/library/scripts/branch-facts.sh:*)"]

Assess whether this branch is ready to be submitted as a reviewable pull request.

Analysis Steps

0. Gather the exact numbers first: "$HOME"/.claude/library/scripts/branch-facts.sh [base] emits JSON (ahead/behind, conventional-commit and branch-name compliance, WIP commits, diff size, conflict markers, TODOs and console.logs added, test files touched, svu bump). Judge from these facts; the steps below are the judgement layer, not fact-gathering to repeat by hand.
1. Identify the base branch (usually main) and list all commits since diverging
2. Review the full diff for:
   • Incomplete work (half-implemented features, placeholder logic)
   • Obvious bugs or unhandled edge cases
   • Code quality issues that would block a reviewer
3. Check commit history:
   • Conventional commit compliance (type(scope): description)
   • Logical atomicity — each commit should represent one coherent change
   • No WIP, fixup, or junk commits that should have been cleaned up
4. Check branch name against naming conventions:
   • Format: <prefix>/<short-description> (lowercase, hyphens, imperative)
   • Valid prefixes: feat, fix, enhance, refactor, types, perf, styles, layout, docs, test, deps, config, build, agents, chore, ci, deploy, spike, experiment, wip, hotfix
   • Breaking change branches should use <prefix>/breaking-<description>
5. Scan for anti-patterns:
   • Debugging artefacts (console.log, commented-out code)
   • Unresolved conflict markers (<<<<<<<, =======, >>>>>>>)
   • TODO / FIXME comments introduced in this branch
   • Diff size >500 lines (flag for possible split)
6. Detect breaking changes:
   • Removed or renamed exports, functions, types, or components
   • Changed function signatures (required parameters added/reordered)
   • Modified return types in a widening direction
   • Database schema changes (columns removed/renamed, constraints changed)
   • HTTP API changes (routes, methods, request/response shapes)
   • New required environment variables
   • Changed component props (removed, renamed, type-changed, newly required)

Output Format

Verdict

One of: Ready | Needs Work | Blocked

Branch Health

• Branch name compliance
• Commit message quality
• Commit atomicity

Code Quality Flags

Specific issues found, with file and line references where possible. Omit this section if none found.

Breaking Changes

Any detected breaking changes with context. Flag format:

⚠️ Breaking change — consider feat!: or BREAKING CHANGE: footer

Omit this section if none found.

Recommended Next Steps

Ordered list — blockers first, then improvements, then nice-to-haves.

---

If the verdict is Ready, offer to run /git:pull-request immediately.