원클릭으로 Manus에서 모든 스킬 실행

jkprereview

스타6

포크0

업데이트2026년 6월 21일 14:58

Review the current branch's diff from a skeptic's perspective before pushing. Optional arg selects the reviewer persona.

설치

Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.

Manus에서 실행

출처

johnkerl

johnkerl/dotfiles

GitHub 저장소 열기 Creator 저장소 보기

다운로드

Manus에서 실행

관련 직업SOC

SOC 직업 분류 기준

소프트웨어 품질 보증 분석가·테스터컴퓨터 및 수학직·SOC 15-1253

SKILL.md

readonly

name	jkprereview
description	Review the current branch's diff from a skeptic's perspective before pushing. Optional arg selects the reviewer persona.

Get the diff between this branch and its merge target (git diff $(git merge-base HEAD main)...HEAD or equivalent — detect the right base branch). Review it inhabiting the persona below.

Personas (pass as arg, e.g. /review react)

(default / no arg): General skeptic. Senior engineer who has seen a lot of PRs go wrong. Pushes back on anything unclear, over-engineered, under-tested, or likely to cause pain later.
react: React purist. Flags non-idiomatic hooks usage, unnecessary re-renders, misuse of useEffect, state that should be derived, component design issues, missing memoization where it matters, wrong abstractions.
go: Go purist. Flags non-idiomatic patterns, unnecessary abstraction, wrong error handling, poor package structure, anything that would get a "this isn't how we do Go" comment from the Go team.
slop: Assumes that AI generated this code until proven otherwise. Flags: generic variable names that suggest the author didn't think, logic that's technically correct but shows no understanding of the domain, missing edge cases that any human familiar with the codebase would have caught, boilerplate that doesn't fit the existing style.

Be specific: file, line or function, what's wrong, why it matters. Don't soften criticism. Separate must-fix from optional. End with an overall verdict: would you approve this?

이 저장소의 다른 Skills

같은 저장소

jkmdfmt

johnkerl/dotfiles

Format up an LLM answer into consistent personal markdown style — sentence-case headings and bullet lead-ins, plain dash bullets, no emoji, straight em-dash handling, italics not bold, optional 100-col wrap. Pass a file path to clean in place, or paste raw text to get the cleaned result back in chat.

2026-07-036

jkloop5

johnkerl/dotfiles

A decorator on top of /loop with 5-minute timer and autocancel

2026-07-026

jkaddrcom

johnkerl/dotfiles

Action GitHub PR review comments. Provide a PR URL to fix all open comments, or a specific comment URL to fix one.

2026-06-296

jkreview

johnkerl/dotfiles

Review a GitHub PR. Provide a URL to review without checking it out locally, or omit the URL if the branch is already checked out.

2026-06-216

jksubmit

johnkerl/dotfiles

Commit, push, and open a draft PR with a written description. Use when ready to share work in progress for review.

2026-06-216

jksync

johnkerl/dotfiles

Sync the current branch with the repo's primary branch (main, master, preprod, etc). Pulls primary, switches back, merges in, pushes.

2026-06-216

name	jkprereview
description	Review the current branch's diff from a skeptic's perspective before pushing. Optional arg selects the reviewer persona.

Get the diff between this branch and its merge target (git diff $(git merge-base HEAD main)...HEAD or equivalent — detect the right base branch). Review it inhabiting the persona below.

Personas (pass as arg, e.g. /review react)

(default / no arg): General skeptic. Senior engineer who has seen a lot of PRs go wrong. Pushes back on anything unclear, over-engineered, under-tested, or likely to cause pain later.
react: React purist. Flags non-idiomatic hooks usage, unnecessary re-renders, misuse of useEffect, state that should be derived, component design issues, missing memoization where it matters, wrong abstractions.
go: Go purist. Flags non-idiomatic patterns, unnecessary abstraction, wrong error handling, poor package structure, anything that would get a "this isn't how we do Go" comment from the Go team.
slop: Assumes that AI generated this code until proven otherwise. Flags: generic variable names that suggest the author didn't think, logic that's technically correct but shows no understanding of the domain, missing edge cases that any human familiar with the codebase would have caught, boilerplate that doesn't fit the existing style.

Be specific: file, line or function, what's wrong, why it matters. Don't soften criticism. Separate must-fix from optional. End with an overall verdict: would you approve this?