review-pr-local

name	review-pr-local
specializes	review-pr
description	Repo-specific review guidance for warp. Only the categories declared overridable by the core review-pr skill may be specialized here.

Repo-specific review guidance for warp

This file is a companion to the core review-pr skill. It does not redefine the review output schema, severity labels, safety rules, or evidence rules. It only specializes the override categories the core skill marks as overridable.

Repo-specific style and recurring review patterns

• Do not suggest adding test cases that only vary constructor inputs or struct fields when an existing test already covers the meaningful behavior. Only suggest new tests when they exercise a distinct code path or edge case.
• When a PR is clearly a V0 or initial implementation, frame robustness suggestions such as timeouts, retries, and lifecycle management as optional future work rather than blocking concerns, unless they risk correctness, security, data loss, or a persistent UI hang.
• For Rust changes, apply the repository conventions from WARP.md: avoid unnecessary type annotations, prefer imports over long path qualifiers, name context parameters ctx and place them last, remove unused parameters instead of prefixing them with _, and prefer inline format arguments in macros.
• Avoid wildcard _ match arms when an enum can reasonably be matched exhaustively; exhaustive matches are preferred so future variants are surfaced during review.
• For new or changed feature flags, prefer high-level runtime checks with FeatureFlag::YourFlag.is_enabled() over #[cfg(...)] unless the code cannot compile without a compile-time gate.
• Flag nested or redundant TerminalModel locking when the call stack may already hold the model lock. Prefer passing locked references down the stack and keeping lock scopes short.
• In WarpUI code, flag inline MouseStateHandle::default() usage during render or event handling. Mouse state handles should be created during construction and then cloned/referenced where needed.
• For user-facing UI changes, mention missing validation only when it is tied to a concrete risk or when the PR changes behavior that should be verified visually.

Behavioral or UI-impacting changes require visual evidence

• If the PR changes anything user-visible (UI components, layout, styling, copy in surfaces users see, terminal/Warp app visuals, or other behavior a user can perceive), analyze both pr_description.txt and any PR comments available in the workflow context for attached screenshots, GIFs, or videos demonstrating the change end to end.
  • Treat markdown image/video embeds (![...](...), <img ...>, <video ...>), GitHub user-attachment links (e.g. https://github.com/user-attachments/..., https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/...), Loom links, and similar hosted media as valid evidence.
  • The Screenshots / Videos section from .github/pull_request_template.md being present but empty does not count as evidence.
  • Unit tests, integration tests, git diff --check, code-path descriptions, and other textual explanations may supplement visual evidence but do not replace it for user-visible behavior.
• If the change is behavioral or UI-impacting and no screenshots or videos are attached in the description or comments, add an inline or summary-level comment requesting them. Use wording such as: "For this user-facing change, please include screenshots or a screen recording demonstrating it working end to end."
• When required visual evidence is missing for a behavioral or UI-impacting change that can be manually tested, set the final recommendation in the top-level body ## Verdict section to Request changes, even if no other blocking issues were found. The top-level verdict field must be "REJECT" to match.
• Author environment limitations (e.g., headless runner, no desktop, environment can't capture) do not exempt UI-impacting changes from visual evidence. Suggest capturing the recording from a local desktop run or from a remote environment with desktop/computer-use support (for example, a coding agent such as Oz with computer use enabled). Reply with something like: "This change is user-facing, so a screenshot or short recording is still required. If a local desktop isn't available, you can capture it from a coding agent that supports computer use (Oz is one option — see Warp's computer use docs) and attach it here." Set the verdict to Request changes.
• Exempt visual evidence only when the user-visible behavior truly cannot be meaningfully shown visually (for example, changes affecting only screen readers or non-visual side effects). If so, briefly state why screenshots or recordings would not be meaningful. Never exempt based on limitations of the author's environment.
• If the PR is not user-visible at all (e.g. pure refactor, internal tools, build scripts, backend-only code, tests, or documentation), do not request screenshots or videos.

User-facing strings

• Flag interpolated text that would read unnaturally at runtime or combine sentence fragments with the wrong casing.
• Link text should be descriptive rather than bare URLs or generic "click here" labels.
• Verify that product terminology is consistent across related UI, comments, workflow messages, and errors in the same PR.

Graceful degradation and observability

• When optional dynamic data such as URLs, session links, workflow links, issue numbers, or metadata may be absent, prefer omitting the element or showing a short fallback over rendering empty or broken output.
• Do not suggest removing session links, workflow URLs, or diagnostic context from error paths. Those links are important for debugging failed automation and user reports.
• Prefer generic, user-safe error text in user-visible surfaces, but keep enough structured logging or diagnostic context for maintainers to investigate failures.